Summary

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Put-in-Bay Waterworks Light Railway Company v…

Having failed and declined to accept the opportunity afforded by an interlocutory order to regain possession of its property, by giving a bond to pay such charges as the court should determine to be just and proper, and not having offered, at last, to pay the claims and liens adjudged to be just and proper, the defendant company seems to us to have suffered no injustice.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Put-in-Bay Waterworks Light Railway Company v…

It is too plain for argument that the replevin suit, affecting only certain articles of personal property, and arising out of a controversy between the railway company and Tillotson, its vice president, could not draw into the jurisdiction and control of the state court the railroad and franchises of the railway company, so as to preclude creditors of the company from instituting proceedings in the Federal court. As respects the restraining order, if such were even issued, it does not appear that Tillotson ever disobeyed it, and, if he did, he personally would be answerable to the state court.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature