Noble State Bank v. Haskell

• Decision Date: 27 January 1911
• Docket Number: No. 71,71
• Citation: Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 575, 31 S.Ct. 299, 55 L.Ed. 341 (1911)
• Parties: NOBLE STATE BANK, Plff. in Err., v. C. N. HASKELL et al. Petition for rehearing presented
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

219 U.S. 575

31 S.Ct. 299

55 L.Ed. 341

NOBLE STATE BANK, Plff. in Err.,

v C. N. HASKELL et al.

No. 71.

Petition for rehearing presented January 27, 1911.

Amended opinion filed February 20, 1911.

Mr. C. B. Ames for the petition.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 575-580 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

Leave to file an application for rehearing is asked in this case. We see no reason to grant it, but, as the judgment delivered seems to have conveyed a wrong impression of the opinion of the court in some details, we add a few words to what was said when the case was decided. We fully understand the practical importance of the question, and the very powerful argument that can be made against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have nothing to say, as it is not our concern. Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, 49 L. ed. 1085, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 676, 4 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1171; Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Min. Co. 200 U. S. 527, 50 L. ed. 581, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 4 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1174, were cited to establish, not that property might be taken for a private use, but that, among the public uses for which it might be taken, were some which, if looked at only in their immediate...