Case Name: ABBOT v. ROSS; ROSS v. ARMES
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1896-10-05
Citations: 9 App. D.C. 289
Docket Number: Nos. 624 and 625
Parties: ABBOT v. ROSS. ROSS v. ARMES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Volume: 9
Pages: 289–290

Head Matter:
ABBOT v. ROSS. ROSS v. ARMES.
District of Columbia v. Armes, 8 App. D. C. 393, applied and followed.
Nos. 624 and 625.
Submitted October 5, 1896.
Decided October 5, 1896.
Hearing on an appeal from a judgment in condemnation proceedings instituted under the act of Congress of March 2, 1893 (27 Stat. 332), providing for a permanent system of highways in the District of Columbia outside of the cities of Washington and Georgetown.
Affirmed.
Mr. Nathaniel Wilson for the appellant Abbot.
Mr. 8. T. Thomas, Attorney for the District of Columbia; Mr. A. B. Duvall, Assistant Attorney; and Mr. A. 8. Worthington and Mr. Samuel Maddox, special counsel, for Ross et al.
Mr. Nathaniel Wilson, Mr. G. H. Armes, Mr. Chapin Brown and Mr. A. H. 0’ Connor for Armes et al.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Alvey
delivered the opinion of the Court:
It appears from the record in these cases that the decree appealed from was entered in the court below in pursuance of the mandate issued by this court on the 11th day of May, 1896, in case No. 552, on the docket of this court, and in pursuance of the opinion of this court in that case, and that the questions of law involved in this appeal aré the same as those then considered and passed upon by this court. District of Columbia v. Armes, 8 App. D. C. 393.
The decree now appealed from, which is the decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding a District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, entered June 1, 1896, must therefore, for the reasons fully-stated in the opinion of this court above referred to, be affirmed, with costs; and it is so ordered.