TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Treat v. Grand Canyon Railway Co.

J. R. TREAT, as Treasurer and Ex Officio Tax Collector of the County of Coconino, Territory of Arizona, and the COUNTY OF COCONINO, TERRITORY OF ARIZONA, and v. GRAND CANYON RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation, and

Treat v. Grand Canyon Ry. Co., 100 P. 438 (Ariz. 1909)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Arizona Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 20, 1909
Docket
No. Civil No. 1032
Judges
Campbell, Doan, Kent, Nave
Citations
100 P. 43812 Ariz. 1171909 Ariz. LEXIS 64
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
1. Appeal and Error — Law op Case — Reversal—Proceedings in Lower Court. — A decision' of the supreme court on appeal is the law of the case on reversal and subsequent trial.
Summary
APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, in and for the County of Coconino. Richard E. Sloan, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Doan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

DOAN, J. —

The Grand Canyon Railway Company, the ap-pellee in this case, brought an action in the district court of Coconino county in 1906 against the treasurer -and tax collector of that county, praying for an injunction against the collection of taxes that had been assessed against the property owned by that corporation for the year 1906, upon the ground that under the laws of this territory the property of the said corporation was exempt from taxation. A general demurrer to the complaint was sustained, on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The case was appealed to this court. We held the complaint to be sufficient. Ante, p. 69, 95 Pac. 187 . Under the mandate from this court, the case was again tried in the lower court, and is now again before us on appeal.

No briefs have been filed in'this court by counsel, and the only assignments of error were filed in the lower court and appear in the abstract of the record. The first of these 'assignments is as to the sufficiency of the complaint. This was determined by our decision on the former appeal. The other *118 two assignments are too indefinite to enable us to consider them.

As the only question presented to us on tbis appeal is the identical question that was determined by us (ante, p. 69, 95 Pae. 187), we affirm the judgment of the lower court in this case on the authority of that decision.

KENT, G. J., and CAMPBELL and NAVE, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1912: 11929: 119122026peak 1912 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Metcalf v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co.274 P. 632 (Ariz. 1929)
  2. Treat v. Grand Canyon Railway Co.222 U.S. 448 (1912)

Most recent

  1. Metcalf v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co.274 P. 632 (Ariz. 1929)
  2. Treat v. Grand Canyon Railway Co.222 U.S. 448 (1912)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Grand Canyon Ry. Co. v. Treat, 95 P. 187 (Ariz. 1908) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list