County of San Mateo v. Southern Pac Co
| Decision Date | 21 December 1885 |
| Citation | 29 L.Ed. 589,6 S.Ct. 317,116 U.S. 138 |
| Parties | COUNTY OF SAN MATEO v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. 1 Filed |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
John W. Ross, for the motion.
A. L. Rhodes, in opposition.
This motion was made on the eighteenth of November last by Mr. John W. Ross, who had been specially appointed by the board of supervisors of the county as counsel for that purpose. Upon suggestion that counsel of record desired to oppose the motion, an order was made that notice be given them to appear and show cause against it if they desired to be so. This they have done, and it now appears that the suit was begun in a state court April 22, 1882. An answer was filed by the railroad company May 25, 1882. On the thirtieth of June the suit was removed to the circuit court of the United States. An amended answer was filed August 16, 1882, and on the same day a demurrer was filed to the answer. On the sixth of September the counsel for the county executed to the railroad company a receipt, of which the following is a copy:
'County of San Mateo, Plaintiff, v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant.
'Received, San Francisco, September 6, 1882, of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the sum of seven thousand two hundred and forty-seven 63-100 dollars, ($7,247.63,) and the sum of $724.76 dollars, attorneys' fees, all to be credited upon any judgment that may be obtained by the plaintiff in the above-entitled action.
'In case judgment shall be rendered in said action in favor of said defendant, then said sum of money, less our fees agreed to be paid by said county, shall be paid into the treasury of the said county of San Mateo as a donation by said defendant in lieu of taxes for the fiscal year 1881-82, declared invalid. But in the event that a law shall be hereafter passed providing for a reassessment of property in said complaint in said action in said county for said year, then said sum of money is to be treated as a part payment for taxes for said fiscal year.
'Attorneys for San Mateo Co. in said action.'
On the twentieth of September the following stipulation was filed in the cause:
'RHODES & BARSTOW,
'Attys. for Plaintiff.
'L. D. MCKISICK,
'Atty. for Defendant.'
On the twenty-fifth of September a judgment was rendered upon the demurrer in favor of the defendant, and the suit dismissed. The next day a writ of error was brought to this court, and docketed here October 13, 1882. The case was elaborately argued before us December 19, 1882, but before a decision was reached a stipulation was entered into between the parties, as follows:
'IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. (No. 1063.)
'The County of San Mateo vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.
'Whereas, certain actions brought by the people of the state of California, or by certain counties of said state, against said defendant, and other railroad companies operating railroads in said state, for the recovery of taxes assessed against said companies for state and county purposes, were, during the month of August last, tried before and submitted to the circuit court of the United States, Ninth circuit, for the district of California, which actions have since been decided against the plaintiffs;
'And whereas, the attorneys for the respective parties to said actions against whom judgments have been rendered intend to sue out a writ or writs of error in one or more of said actions, and to prosecute the same with as much diligence as possible, and to move the supreme court that the same be advanced on the calendar for argument:
'It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties to the first-mentioned action that the further consideration of the said action by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connecticut General Life Ins Co v. Johnson
...v. Colorado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406, 407, 408, 409, 52 S.Ct. 443, 447, 448, 76 L.Ed. 815. 11 San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 116 U.S. 138, 6 S.Ct. 317, 29 L.Ed. 589. See, Benj. B. Kendrick, 'Journal of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction' (1914, New York); Howard J......
-
State v. Standard Oil Co.
...v. Glidden, 113 U. S. 222, 5 Sup. Ct. 428, 28 L. Ed. 981; Faucher v. Grass, 60 Iowa, 507, 15 N. W. 302; San Mateo Company v. Railroad, 116 U. S. 138, 6 Sup. Ct. 317, 29 L. Ed. 589; Atkinson v. Taber, 7 Colo. 195, 197, 3 Pac. 64; Wood Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333, 19 L. Ed. 379; Cleveland ......
-
Adamson v. People of State of California
...the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. 8 See San Mateo County v. Southern P.R. Co., 116 U.S. 138, 6 S.Ct. 317, 29 L.Ed. 589; Santa Clara County v. Southern P.R. Co., 118 U.S. 394, 396, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118; Graham, The 'Consp......
-
Texas v. Yellen
...Cir. 2020) ("And a case becomes moot when a claimant receives all her requested relief."); cf. San Mateo County v. S. Pac. R.R. Co. , 116 U.S. 138, 141–42, 6 S.Ct. 317, 29 L.Ed. 589 (1885) (noting the "debt for which the suit was brought has been unconditionally paid and satisfied" and thus......
-
THE DISEMBODIED FIRST AMENDMENT.
...challenged a California law that banned railroads, but not individuals, from deducting their mortgage payments from property taxes. 116 U.S. 138 (1885). Arguing the case for Southern Pacific was Roscoe Conkling, the last surviving member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction that drafted......
-
VESTED RIGHTS, "FRANCHISES," AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.
...under a legitimate exercise of the powers granted."). (641) R.R. Tax Cases, 13 F. 722, 754 (CCD. Cal. 1882), writ of error dismissed, 116 U.S. 138 (1885); cf. Stern, supra note 631, at 25-28 (praising Justice Field's analysis, but suggesting that "the majority of cases reported in the books......