Clark v. Keith
| Decision Date | 22 January 1883 |
| Parties | CLARK, Collector, ect., v. KEITH |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Benj.J.Lea, Henry Cooper, and Harace H. Harrison, for plaintiff in error.
R. McP. Smith and Sp'l Hill, for defendant in error.
When this case was here on a former writ of error it was decided that Keith, the collector, was bound in law to receive the genuine notes of the Bank of Tennessee, issued after May 6, 186§, in payment of taxes due the state of Tennessee, unless he showed in defense that the notes tendered were issued for the purpose of aiding the rebellion. The affirmative of this issue was put on the collector. Keith v. Clark, 97 U. S. 454. That question is no longer open in this case, for the reason that it has long been settled that whatever has been decided here on one writ of error cannot be re-examined on a subsequent writ brought in the same suit. This rule was distinctly stated in Sup'rs v. Kennicott, 94 U. S. 499, where numerous authorities are cited, beginning as early as Himely v. Rose, 3 Cranch, 314.
On the trial of an issue framed to meet the case as it was sent back from here for further proceedings, the court instructed the jury as follows:
The ruling of the supreme court of Tennessee sustaining this instruction is the only error assigned on the record brought up with the present writ. As the instruction was in exact conformity with our former decision, which we cannot re-examine in the present case, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Messinger v. Anderson
... ... Columbia Bank, ... 100 F. 393, 40 C.C.A. 444; Theological Seminary v ... People, 189 Ill., 439, 452, 59 N.E. 977; Leese v ... Clark, 20 Cal. 387 ... In the ... case last cited, Mr. Justice Field, after referring to the ... finality of the adjudication of the Supreme ... The cases cited above determine this. To ... these we add: Loeser v. Savings Bank, 163 F. 212, 89 ... C.C.A. 642; Clark v. Keith, 106 U.S. 464, 1 Sup.Ct ... 568, 27 L.Ed. 302; Illinois v. I.C.R. Co., 184 U.S ... 77, 91, 22 Sup.Ct. 300, 46 L.Ed. 440; Ellis v. Northern ... ...
-
Mayflower Hotel Stock. P. Com. v. Mayflower Hotel Corp.
...case." Thompson v. Maxwell Land Grant Co., 1897, 168 U.S. 451, 456, 18 S.Ct. 121, 123, 42 L.Ed. 539. See, also, Clark v. Keith, 1882, 106 U.S. 464, 1 S.Ct. 568, 27 L.Ed. 302; Barney v. Winona & St. Peter R. Co., 1886, 117 U.S. 228, 231, 6 S.Ct. 654, 29 L.Ed. 858; In re Sanford Fork & Tool C......
-
Thornton v. Carter
...v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 9 Cir., 64 F.2d 457, 464. 4 Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488, 492, 9 L.Ed. 1167; Clark v. Keith, 106 U.S. 464, 465, 1 S.Ct. 568, 27 L.Ed. 302; In re Washington, etc. R. Co., 140 U.S. 91, 11 S.Ct. 673, 35 L.Ed. 339; Gaines v. Rugg, 148 U.S. 228, 243, 13 S.Ct. 611......
-
Dickinson v. O. & W. THUM CO.
...to the same effect, Himely v. Rose, 5 Cranch. 314, 3 L. Ed. 111; Roberts v. Cooper, 20 How. 467, 15 L. Ed. 969; Clark v. Keith, 106 U. S. 464, 1 S. Ct. 568, 27 L. Ed. 302; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U. S. 567, 6 S. Ct. 518, 29 L. Ed. 727; In re Potts, 166 U. S. 263, 17 S. Ct. 520, 41 L. Ed. 994......