Railroad Co. v. Johnson
Railroad Company v. Johnson
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice MILLER
delivered the opinion of the court.
In accordance with the principles settled by this court in the cases of Knox v. Lee, and Parker v. Davis * which were affirmed in Dooley v. Smith, † the tender was a good and valid one, and the judgment for coin is erroneous, and must be reversed.
*196 It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut be, and the same is hereby, reversed, and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings
In conformity with this opinion.
12 Wallace, 457.
13 Id. 604.
Dissent
The CHIEF JUSTICE
dissenting: I think it my duty to express my dissent from the judgment just announced, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court in Hepburn v. Griswold, * and in the dissenting opinions in Knox v. Lee, and Parker v. Davis.
My brothers CLIFFORD and FIELD concur in this dissent.
8 Wallace, 603.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
82 U.S. 195 (1872) 15 Wall. 195
RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
JOHNSON.
Supreme Court of United States.
Mr. J. Halsey, for the plaintiff in error. No opposing counsel.
Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.
In accordance with the principles settled by this court in the cases of Knox v. Lee, and Parker v. Davis, [*] which were affirmed in Dooley v. Smith, [] the tender was a good and valid one, and the judgment for coin is erroneous, and must be reversed.
*196 It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut be, and the same is hereby, REVERSED, and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings
IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.
The CHIEF JUSTICE dissenting:
I think it my duty to express my dissent from the judgment just announced, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court in Hepburn v. Griswold, [*] and in the dissenting opinions in Knox v. Lee, and Parker v. Davis.
My brothers CLIFFORD and FIELD concur in this dissent.
NOTES
[*] 12 Wallace, 457.
[] 13 Id. 604.
[*] 8 Wallace, 603.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.