ROYALL
v.
VIRGINIA
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This case cannot be distinguished ir> principle from that of Royall v. Virginia, 116 U. S. 572. The demurrer to the plea is an admission of record that the coupon tendered in payment of the license tax was genuine, “ and bore on its face the contract'of the State of Yirginia that it -should be received in payment of all taxes, debts, and demands due -said State.” This shows a good tender, which brings this case within the ruling by this court in the other. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the.State of Virginia is-reversed on the a/uthority of Royall v. Virginia, supra, a/nd the ca/use remanded for further proceedings, not mconsistent with this opinion a/nd the judgment i/n that case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Henry v. Henkel, 235 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1914)…ty of its reasoning to the [*230] present case, but because of the fact that the writ was there.denied even though the statute, on which the charge was based, was ultimately held to be void. Royall v. Virginia, 116 U. S. 572, 579, 583; Same v. Same, 121 U. S. 102, 104; In re Royall, 125 U. S. 696. The cases cited do not, of course, lead to the conclusion that a citizen can be held in custody or removed for trial where there was no provision of the common law or statute making an offense of the acts charged.…
-
McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1898)…U. S. 270; Carter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 317, 322; Moore v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 338, 340; Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325; Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U. S. 567, 571; Royall v. Virginia, 116 U. S. 572; Royall v. Virginia, 121 U. S. 102; Sands v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 585; Stewart v. Virginia, 117 U. S. 612; In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443; McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U. S. 662. For the first time in the history of this litigation has any appellate court, either state or Federal, distinctly…
-
McGAHEY v. Virginia, 135 U.S. 662 (U.S. 1890)…erhaps in deciding in the case of Royall v. Virginia, that the license tax of a practising. lawyer was a tax within the meaning of the act of 1871, and payable in coupons attached to bonds issued under that act. In another case, Royall v. Virginia, 121 U. S. 102, it appeared that an information was filed against Royall for practising as a lawyer without first having obtained a revenue license. He pleaded payment of the license fee, partly in a [*680] coupon cut from a bond issued under the act of 1871 and p…
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
- Royall v. Virginia, 116 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1886)