Walston v. Nevin Roach v. Same
Decision Date | 10 December 1888 |
Citation | 128 U.S. 578,9 S.Ct. 192,32 L.Ed. 544 |
Parties | WALSTON et al. v. NEVIN et al. ROACH et al. v. SAME. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
H. M. Lane and J. K. Goodloe, for the motions.
B. F. Buckner, contra.
Judgment was rendered in the Louisville chancery court in favor of the defendants in error in the first of the above-named causes, directing the enforcement of a lien given by a statute of the commonwealth of Kentucky approved March 24, 1882, entitled 'An act to amend the charter of the city of Louisville,' by a sale of certain lots in the city of Louisville owned by plaintiffs in error, to pay the amounts assessed against such lots for a local improvement, and, upon appeal, was affirmed by the court of appeals of Kentucky. In the second case, which arose upon another local improvement, but involves the same questions here, the Louisville chancery court denied the defendants in error relief, because in its opinion the proceedings for the improvement had not been properly taken; but the court of appeals reversed the judgment of the chancellor, and remanded the cause, 'with directions to enforce the lien and for proceedings consistent with the opinion herein, which is ordered to be certified to said court.' Writs of error were thereupon prosecuted to this court, to dismiss which motions are now made, united with motions to affirm under the rule.
A preliminary objection is raised that defendants in error should have caused the entire record to be printed. But we only require the printing of so much of the record as will enable us to act understandingly without referring to the transcript; and if, in the judgment of counsel opposing the motions, more in that respect was needed, he might have made such specific reference thereto as would have enabled counsel for the moving parties to have supplied it. As the cases stand, we have apparently been furnished with quite enough for the disposition of the questions involved.
The parts of the statute necessary to be considered upon these motions are as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ballard v. Mississippi Cotton Oil Co.
... ... on the conclusion of the evidence the same was excluded on ... the motion of defendant, and a verdict for defendant ... Ed., 666); 127 U.S. 205 (8 S.Ct. 1161; 32 L. Ed., ... 107); Walston v. Nevin, 128 U.S. 578 (9 S.Ct. 192; ... 32 L. Ed., 544); New York & N ... ...
-
Stingily v. City of Jackson
... ... CITY OF JACKSON. [ * ] CENTRAL COTTON OIL CO. v. SAME Nos. 24970, 25091 Supreme Court of Mississippi June 8, 1925 ... Merchant, ... 125 U.S. 345, 8 S.Ct. 921, 31 L.Ed. 763; Walston v ... Nevin, 128 U.S. 578, 9 S.Ct. 192, 32 L.Ed. 544; ... Gray's ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club
...like circumstances and conditions may be found. Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U.S. 525, 40 S. Ct. 2, 63 L. Ed. 1124; Walston v. Nevin, 128 U.S. 578, 9 S. Ct. 192, 32 L. Ed. 544; Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U.S. 400, 30 S. Ct. 287, 54 L. Ed. 536, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247; German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Ha......
-
Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club
... ... commission. At the same session a tax of $2,500 for each day ... races were run was imposed upon ... Bugbee, 250 U.S ... 525, 40 S.Ct. 2, 63 L.Ed. 1124; Walston v. Nevin, ... 128 U.S. 578, 9 S.Ct. 192, 32 L.Ed. 544; Southern R. Co ... ...