CLARK
v.
KEITH
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court affirmed a Tennessee tax collection case where the court had previously held that a tax collector must accept genuine Bank of Tennessee notes issued after May 6, 1861, in payment of taxes unless he proved the notes were issued to aid the rebellion. The Court declined to reconsider the prior holding on this writ of error, applying the established rule that matters decided on a previous writ of error in the same suit cannot be re-examined. The trial court's jury instruction placing the burden of proof on the defendant to show the notes were issued for rebellion purposes was upheld as conforming to the Court's earlier decision.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
When this case was here on a former writ of error it was decided that Keith, the collector, was bound in law to receive the genuine notes of the Bank of Tennessee, issued after May 6, 1861, in payment of taxes due the State of Tennessee, unless he showed in defence that the notes tendered were issued for the purpose of aiding the rebellion. The affirmative of this issue was put on the collector. Keith v. Clark, 97 U. S. 454. That question is no longer open in this case, for the reason that it has long been settled that whatever has been decided here on one writ of error cannot be re-examined on a subsequent writ brought in the same suit. This rule was distinctly stated in Supervisors v. Kennicott, 94. id. 498, where numerous authorities are cited, beginning as early as Himely v. Rose, 5 Cranch, 313.
On the trial of an issue framed to meet the case as it was sent back from here for further proceedings, the court-instructed the jury as follows: —
“ If a part of the Torbett issue (that after May 6,' 1861) wks made and signed by the proper officers of the bank to aid' the rebellion, and the other-part of said is'sue was-made, signed, and issued for the purpose of doing a legitimate banking business, and you cannot say from the evidence, in the' case that the notes here sued on were issued in aid of the rebellion; or were signed and issued for legitimate banking business, then', you should find for the plaintiff. In other words, the law presumes that the notes here sued upon were' issued for a lawful purpose, and.the burden of proof-is upon the deféndant to show otherwise before this defence can be sustained.”
The ruling of the Supreme Court of Tennessee sustaining this instruction is the only error assigned on the record brought up with the present writ. As the instruction was in * exact conformity with our former decision; we cannot re-examine it in the present case.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Hart v. Stribling, 25 Fla. 435 (Fla. 1889)…e court below, because it is well settled that whatever has been decided upon appeal cannot be re-examined on a subsequent appeal brought in the same case by the same parties. Wilson, executrix, et al., vs. Fridenburg, 21 Fla., 398; Clark vs. Keith, 106 U. S. 464; 94 U. S. 498; 17 Wall., 283; 12 Wall., 129; 116 U. S. 567, and numerous other authorities. But was the law of this case settled in 20 Fla. ? Under the statute (McClellan’s Dig., p. 345, sec. 21,) it is provided that “the judges of the Supreme Cou…
-
In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1895)…c Railroad, 1 Wall. 69; In re Washington & Georgetown Railroad, 140 U. S. 91. It must be remembered, however, that jio question, once considered and decided by this court,- can be reexamined at any subsequent stage of the same case. Clark v. Keith, 106 U. S. 464; Sibbald v. United States, and Texas & Pacific Railway v. Anderson, cited at the beginning of this opinion. Writ of mandamus denied.…
-
Thompson v. Maxwell Land Grant & Ry. Co., 168 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1897)…or writ of error cannot be reexamined on a second appeal or writ of error brought in the same suit. The first decision has become the’settled law of. the case. Supervisors v. Kennicott, 94 U. S. 498, and cases cited in the opinion; Clark, v. Keith, 106 U. S. 464; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U. S. 567; Northern Pacific Railroad, v. Ellis, 144 U. S. 458; Great Western Telegraph Company v. Burnham, 162 U. S. 339, 343. "Whenever a case comes from the highest court of a State for review, and by statute or settled pr…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Himely v. Rose, 5 Cranch 313 (U.S. 1809)
- Keith v. Clark, 97 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1878)