Shepard Vs. Barkley

Shepard vs Barkley

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided May-06-1918

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/92816

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/92816
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: May-06-1918
Case Number: 247 U.S. 1
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shepard

Respondent

Barkley

Excerpt

.....2 court differ concerning them: (a) that the appeal in this case brings up for review both the causes which were decided by the court below at the same time, and both therefore will be controlled by the decree here to be rendered; (b) that the order allowing an amendment as to the form of the appeal and the parties which was previously made without prejudice to the right of the appellees to object to the same at the hearing on the merits was rightfully granted, and the objection which was at the hearing on the merits made by the appellees is without merit; (c) that, under the case as made by the pleadings, there is authority to review. the approach to the merits being thus cleared, without any difference on the subject, the court is of opinion that the doctrines by which the case is controlled have been so affirmatively and conclusively settled by a prior decision of this court as to cause it to be unnecessary as a matter of original consideration to restate them. watson v. jones, 13 wall. 679. and the want of any possible reason for removing this case from the control of the doctrines of the watson case is, if needs be, conclusively shown by the many cases referred to by the court below in its opinion (222 f. 669), in which the watson case was made controlling and decisive as to controversies not in substance differing from the one here presented. sherard v. walton, 206 f. 562; helm v. zarecor, 213 f. 648; bonham v. sharp, 213 f. 660; harris v. cosby, 173 ala. 81; sanders v. baggerly, 96 ark. 117; permanent commission of missions v. pacific synod, 157 cal. 105; mack v. kime, 129 ga. 1; first presbyterian church of lincoln v. first cumberland presbyterian church of lincoln, 245 ill. 74; fussell v. hail, 233 ill. 73; fancy prairie church v. king, 245 ill. 120; pleasant grove congregation v. riley, 248 ill. 604; ramsey v. hicks, 174 ind. 428; bentle v. ulay, .....

Full Judgment

Shepard v. Barkley - 247 U.S. 1 (1918)
U.S. Supreme Court Shepard v. Barkley, 247 U.S. 1 (1918)

Shepard v. Barkley

No. 257

Argued April 23, 1918

Decided May 6, 1918

247 U.S. 1

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

SYLLABUS

Decided on the authority of Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679.

222 F. 669, affirmed.

Memorandum opinion by MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE, by direction of the Court.

The Court is of the opinion that the following propositions are well founded, although some members of the

Page 247 U. S. 2

Court differ concerning them: (a) that the appeal in this case brings up for review both the causes which were decided by the court below at the same time, and both therefore will be controlled by the decree here to be rendered; (b) that the order allowing an amendment as to the form of the appeal and the parties which was previously made without prejudice to the right of the appellees to object to the same at the hearing on the merits was rightfully granted, and the objection which was at the hearing on the merits made by the appellees is without merit; (c) that, under the case as made by the pleadings, there is authority to review.

The approach to the merits being thus cleared, without any difference on the subject, the Court is of opinion that the doctrines by which the case is controlled have been so affirmatively and conclusively settled by a prior decision of this Court as to cause it to be unnecessary as a matter of original consideration to restate them. Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679. And the want of any possible reason for removing this case from the control of the doctrines of the Watson case is, if needs be, conclusively shown by the many cases referred to by the court below in its opinion (222 F. 669), in which the Watson case was made controlling and decisive as to controversies not in substance differing from the one here presented. Sherard v. Walton, 206 F. 562; Helm v. Zarecor, 213 F. 648; Bonham v. Sharp, 213 F. 660; Harris v. Cosby, 173 Ala. 81; Sanders v. Baggerly, 96 Ark. 117; Permanent Commission of Missions v. Pacific Synod, 157 Cal. 105; Mack v. Kime, 129 Ga. 1; First Presbyterian Church of Lincoln v. First Cumberland Presbyterian Church of Lincoln, 245 Ill. 74; Fussell v. Hail, 233 Ill. 73; Fancy Prairie Church v. King, 245 Ill. 120; Pleasant Grove Congregation v. Riley, 248 Ill. 604; Ramsey v. Hicks, 174 Ind. 428; Bentle v. Ulay, 175 Ind. 494; Wallace v. Hughes,

Page 247 U. S. 3

131 Ky. 445; Carothers v. Moseley, 99 Miss. 671; Hayes v. Manning, 263 Mo. 1; Missouri Valley College v. Guthrie, 263 Mo. 52; First Presbyterian Church v. Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 34 Okl. 503; Brown v. Clark, 102 Tex. 323.

Affirmed.

Same Parties Shepard vs Barkley Same Subject Land Acquisition