Edward Gallup v. William Schmidt
Decision Date | 06 January 1902 |
Docket Number | No. 100,100 |
Citation | 46 L.Ed. 207,183 U.S. 300,22 S.Ct. 162 |
Parties | EDWARD P. GALLUP, Executor of William P. Gallup, Deceased, Plff. in Err. , v. WILLIAM H. SCHMIDT, Treasurer of Marion County, Indiana |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is a writ of error to a judgment of the circuit court of Marion county, state of Indiana, entered in pursuance of a final judgment of the supreme court of that state, in a case wherein Edward P. Gallup, executor of William P. Gallup, deceased, was plaintiff in error, and William H. Schmidt, treasurer of said Marion county, was defendant in error.
The main facts in the case were thus stated in the opinion of the supreme court (154 Ind. 196, 56 N. E. 443):
Appeals were taken by both parties from the decree of the circuit court of Marion county to the supreme court of the state. That court was of opinion that the executor, as appellant, was not entitled to a reversal, but that, for error of the circuit court in allowing the executor a certain credit of $5,750 upon the amount recovered, the judgment must be reversed with instructions to restate conclusions of law in accordance with the opinion of the supreme court, and render judgment thereon in favor of the treasurer for the sum of $52,746.69, with interest from October 31, 1898; and final judgment for said amount was accordingly so entered by the circuit court of Marion county, to which judgment a writ of error was allowed, and the cause brought to this court.
Messrs. W. H. H. Miller, Wayne MacVeagh, John B. Elam, James W. Fesler, and Samuel D. Miller for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. William L. Taylor, William A. Ketcham, Martin M. Hugg, Frederick A. Joss, Merrill Moores, and Cassius C. Hadley for defendant in error.
To answer the questions presented to us in this record requires an examination of two sections of the Indiana Revised Statutes, which read as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nickey v. State ex rel. Attorney-General
...v. McCarty, 74 Mo. 455; Houston & T. C. R. R. Co. v. State, 39 Tex. 149; Gallop v. Smith, 154 Ind. 196, 56 N.E. 443; Gallop v. Smith, 183 U.S. 300, 46 L.Ed. 207; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90, 23 L.Ed. Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 24 L.Ed. 616; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U.S. 345, 31......
-
Nickey v. State
...L.Ed. 678; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 24 L.Ed. 616; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U.S. 345, 31 L.Ed. 763; 8 S.Ct. Rep. 921; Gallup v. Schmidt, 183 U.S. 307, 213, 22 S.Ct. Rep. 164; King v. Mullins, 171 U.S. 404, 43 L.Ed. 214, 18 S.Ct. Rep. 925; Wilson v. Standefer, 184 U.S. 415, 46 L.E......
-
U.S. v. Herrera
...L.Ed. 1434 (1934); Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Olsen, 262 U.S. 1, 43 S.Ct. 470, 67 L.Ed. 839 (1923); Gallup v. Schmidt,183 U.S. 300, 22 S.Ct. 162, 46 L.Ed. 207 (1902). To raise the question he must show that the alleged unconstitutional feature of the statute injures him, and so op......
-
United Building and Construction Trades Council of Camden County and Vicinity v. Mayor and Council of City of Camden
...party challenging the ordinance was himself a resident of New Orleans. Id., at 546, 23 S.Ct., at 177. See also Gallup v. Schmidt, 183 U.S. 300, 22 S.Ct. 162, 46 L.Ed. 207 (1902); Downham v. Alexandria Council, 10 Wall. 173, 19 L.Ed. 929 (1870). Few decisions by state and federal courts have......