Chaffin v. Taylor
Decision Date | 01 February 1886 |
Citation | 116 U.S. 567,6 S.Ct. 518,29 L.Ed. 727 |
Parties | CHAFFIN v. TAYLOR. Filed |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
A former judgment in this case rendered against the plaintiff in error by the supreme court of appeals of the state of Virginia was reversed by this court, a report of which will be found in 114 U. S. 309; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 924. The record at that time showed the state of the pleadings as follows:
The declaration was in trespass de bonis asportatis; the defendant justified the taking, etc., as treasurer of Henrico county, charged by law with the duty of collecting taxes due the state of Virginia on property and persons in said county, alleging that the property was lawfully seized and taken for taxes due from the plaintiff to the state, which on demand he had refused to pay. To this plea the plaintiff replied a tender in payment of the taxes, when demanded and before the trespass complained of, of the amount due in coupons cut from bonds of the state of Virginia, receivable in payment of taxes by virtue of the act of the general assembly of that state, passed March 30, 1871. To this replication the defendant demurred, specially on the ground—First, that, by the act of January 26, 1882, he was forbidden to receive coupons in payment of taxes; and, second, that, by the act of March 13, 1884, an action of trespass would not lie in such a case,—the two acts referred to being set out in the report of the opinion of this court in the case of Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270, 275, S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 903. On this demurrer judgment was rendered for the defendant, which was reversed by this court, for the reasons set out in the opinion in the case of Poindexter v. Greenhow, ubi supra, on the ground that the statutes referred to were unconstitutional, null, and void, as impairing the obligation of the contract entered into by the state with the holders of its bonds in the act of March 30, 1871. The cause was remanded, with directions to proceed therein in conformity with law and the opinion of this court. The mandate being received and entered of record in the circuit court of Henrico county, that court, against the objection of the plaintiff, on motion of the defendant, permitted the latter to file a rejoinder to the replication, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Messinger v. Anderson
... ... 658; Roberts ... v. Cooper, 20 How. 467, 481, 15 L.Ed. 969; Clark ... v. Keith, 106 U.S. 464, 1 Sup.Ct. 568, 27 L.Ed. 302; ... Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U.S. 567, 6 Sup.Ct. 518, 29 ... L.Ed. 727; Sanford Co., Petitioner, 160 U.S. 247, 259, 16 ... Sup.Ct. 291, 40 L.Ed. 414.' ... ...
-
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr
...194, 74 L.Ed. 659 (1930); In re Washington & G. R. R. Co., 140 U.S. 91, 11 S.Ct. 673, 35 L.Ed. 339 (1891); Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U.S. 567, 6 S.Ct. 518, 29 L.Ed. 727 (1886); Tyler v. Magwire, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 253, 21 L.Ed. 576 (1872); Ex parte Dubuque & Pac. R. R. Co., 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 6......
-
Ward v. State
...after September 26, 1979, it is governed by the prior Ward opinion under the "law of the case" doctrine. Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U.S. 567, 572, 6 S.Ct. 518, 520, 29 L.Ed. 727 (1886); Roberts v. Cooper, 20 How. 467, 481, 15 L.Ed. 969 (1858).4 The denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopar......
-
Barber v. Hartford Life Ins. Company
... ... Green, ... 237 U.S. 531; Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Barber, 245 ... U.S. 146; Condon v. Mutual Reserve, 89 Md. 99; ... Taylor v. Mutual Reserve, 97 Va. 60; State ex ... rel. Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Shain, 254 Mo. 78. (2) ... The issue as to the right and propriety of ... appearing in the record. United States Trust Company v ... New Mexico, 183 U.S. 535; Chaffin v. Taylor, ... 116 U.S. 567; Tyler v. Maguire, 17 Wall. 283; ... Pitkin v. Shacklett, 117 Mo. 548; Hill v ... Draper, 37 S.W. 574; ... ...
-
Pleading sovereign immunity: the doctrinal underpinnings of Hans v. Louisiana and Ex Parte Young.
...DREAMS: SAMUEL FREEMAN MILLER AND THE SUPREME COURT DURING THE CIVIL WAR ERA (2003). (227.) 114 U.S. 269 (1885). (228.) Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U.S. 567 (1886) (granting plaintiff's action for trespass de bonis asportatis); Allen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 114 U.S. 311 (1885) (issuing......