Apps

Collector v. Day

Supreme Court of the United States · 1871-04-18 · cited 318×

Collector v. Day concerned whether Congress could constitutionally impose a federal income tax on the salary of a state judge. The Supreme Court held that it could not, affirming a lower court judgment that exempted the state judicial salary from federal taxation. The Court reasoned that the federal and state governments are separate sovereigns, each immune from taxing the salaries or instrumentalities of the other under principles established in cases like Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County and McCulloch v. Maryland; such taxation would interfere with the reserved powers of the states under the Tenth Amendment. This intergovernmental immunity applies reciprocally to preserve the independent functioning of both levels of government within their respective spheres.

federal powertaxes

Miller v. McKenzie

Supreme Court of the United States · 1871-02-20 · cited 5×

The case Miller v. McKenzie involved a writ of error brought before the Supreme Court. The writ was defective because it recited the proceedings as being between Pitzer Miller and Larkin McKenzie and others, without properly naming all parties. The court determined that this defect was fatal to its jurisdiction based on multiple prior holdings. As a result, the motion was granted and the case was dismissed.

procedure

Bethell v. Demaret

Supreme Court of the United States · 1871-01-30 · cited 22×

This case concerned an attempt to bring a decision from the Louisiana Supreme Court before the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The underlying dispute involved promissory notes and a mortgage whose consideration consisted of Confederate currency, which the state court held invalid under Louisiana law at the time of the contracts. The petitioner argued that the state court's exercise of authority violated the U.S. Constitution and created a federal question under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. The Court rejected this, explaining that a state court's general power to decide cases is not the type of state authority reviewable under that section and that the state decision itself was not repugnant to the Constitution. Finding no federal question in the record, the Court granted the motion to dismiss.

federal powerprocedure

Texas v. Chiles

Supreme Court of the United States · 1871-01-18 · cited 1×

The case involved a motion seeking to hold defendant Chiles accountable for twelve bonds and their proceeds in a suit originally filed by Texas in 1867. The court had previously declined to enter any decree against Chiles for bonds or proceeds based on the evidence then before it. The motion was denied because the bonds in question were received by Chiles only after the bill was filed, and the existing decree expressly limited any accounting to bonds already in the defendants' possession at the time process was served. The court also noted that evidence from a co-defendant was not competent against Chiles. The matter therefore fell outside the scope of the prior decree.

propertyprocedure

The Clinton Bridge

Supreme Court of the United States · 1870-12-19 · cited 35×

This case concerned a lawsuit challenging a bridge across the Mississippi River built by the Albany Bridge Company and the Chicago, Iowa, and Nebraska Railroad Company under state authority, on grounds that it obstructed navigation. Congress passed an act declaring the bridge a lawful structure and post route. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the bridge's legality, holding that the statute legalized the bridge as constructed and supplied the governing rule for the pending suit. The decision followed the precedent of the Wheeling Bridge case, recognizing Congress's authority under the commerce power to alter navigation rights and thereby end claims for abatement or injunction.

federal powerbusiness & regulatory

The Mabey

Supreme Court of the United States · 1870-12-19 · cited 17×

This case involved a motion in the U.S. Supreme Court, sitting in an admiralty appeal, seeking to examine new witnesses whose testimony had not been taken in the lower courts. The court denied the motion. The opinion explained that the moving papers provided no satisfactory excuse, such as late discovery of evidence or inability to compel attendance, for failing to obtain the testimony before the District Court or Circuit Court. It further reasoned that permitting such examinations as a matter of course would encourage parties to withhold evidence from the initial proceedings and risk abuse of the appellate process, while substantial amendments are not allowed at this stage and defective records may instead lead to reversal and remand.

procedure

Samuel Nelson

Affiliations

Decision record

Affiliations

Samuel Nelson

Decision record