TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Board of Comm'rs of Knox Cty. v. Wallace

The Board of Commissioners of the County of Knox, Plaintiffs in Error, v. David C. Wallace

Bd. of Comm'rs of Knox Cty. v. Wallace, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 546 (1859)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 11, 1859
Judges
Daniel, Nelson
Citations
62 U.S. 54616 L. Ed. 21121 How. 5461858 U.S. LEXIS 680
Headnotes
The decision of the court in the preceding case again affirmed.
Summary
This case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Indiana. It was similar, in most of its aspects, to tbe preceding case. In this case there was no notice whatever of the increase of the stock made bythe board at their meeting on 26th February, 1849, and also it was shown that less than a majority of the whole vote of the county was polled.

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

Opinion — Nelson

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the' Circuit Court of the TJnited States for the district of Indiana.

The suit was brought by Wallace against the board, upon several coupons, for instalments of interest which had been attached to certain bonds issued by the defendants to the Ohio and Mississippi R. R. Co. The coupons were owned by the plaintiff, and had been duly presented for payment, which was refused. The defendants plead the general issue, and six special pleas, to which there were replications, except the second and sixth pleas, to which there were demurrers.

The court sustained the demurrers. There were afterwards amendments and demurrers to pleadings not very intelligible in the record, and seem not to have been relied on by either party. The case was tried upon the general issue, and the facts disclosed upon the trial were substantially the same, mutatis mutandis^ as those which were proved or admitted in the previous case of Aspinwall and others against these same defendants. After the evidence was close.d, the defendants presented ten prayers to the court, upon each of which instructions were given. It is unnecessary to go through them; the questions involved have already been exámined in the' case above mentioned, and th,e result there arrived at affirms the judgment in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice DANIEL dissented.

How later courts describe this case

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

1871–1872: 11925–1926: 118712026peak 1871 · 1

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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