Martin v. Stanfield
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam. |
| Citation | Martin v. Stanfield, 17 Ind. 336 (Ind. 1861) |
| Decision Date | 09 December 1861 |
| Parties | Martin v. Stanfield |
APPEAL from the Tippecanoe Common Pleas.
The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded.
H. W Chase and J. A. Wilstach, for the appellant.
John Stanfield, for the appellee.
In this case the appellee, the plaintiff below, had judgment against the appellant upon the following facts, agreed upon, namely:
The error assigned is, that the judgment is erroneous, because the payment was voluntary.
That the tax was improperly assessed,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Bd. of Com'rs of Boone Cnty. v. Adler
...a timely suit against the collecting officer, he might obtain relief by injunction. Greencastle Township v. Black, 5 Ind. 557;Martin v. Stanfield, 17 Ind. 336;Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Lafayette, 22 Ind. 263;English v. Smock, 34 Ind. 122, 7 Am. Rep. 215;Shoemaker v. Board, 36 Ind. 175;Sim v. ......
-
Board of Commissioners of Boone County v. Adler
...the collecting officer, he might obtain relief by injunction. Greencastle Township, etc. v. Black (1854), 5 Ind. 557; Martin v. Stanfield (1861), 17 Ind. 336; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Lafayette 22 Ind. 262; English v. Smock (1870), 34 Ind. 115, 7 Am. Rep. 215; Shoemaker v. Board, etc. (1871)......
-
State ex rel.McKenzie v. Casteel
...Com'rs St. Joseph Co. v. Ruckman, 57 Ind. 96;City of Indianapolis v. Langsdale, 29 Ind. 486;Lima Tp. v. Jenks, 20 Ind. 301;Martin v. Stanfield, 17 Ind. 336;Lima Tp. v. Jenks, 20 Ind. 301. In City of Logansport v. Humphrey, 84 Ind. 467, it was said: “The general rule is beyond dispute that a......
-
State, ex rel. MacKenzie v. Casteel
...Ind. 528; Board, etc., v. Ruckman, 57 Ind. 96; City of Indianapolis v. Langsdale, 29 Ind. 486; Lima Tp. v. Jenks, 20 Ind. 301; Martin v. Stanfield, 17 Ind. 336; Jenks v. Lima Tp., 17 Ind. In City of Logansport v. Humphrey, 84 Ind. 467, it was said: "The general rule is beyond dispute that t......