LEAVENWORTH
v.
KINNEY
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is substantially disposed of by that of Board of County Commissioners of the County of Leavenworth v. Sellew, just decided, 99 U. S. 624. A peremptory writ of mandamus has been ordered against the mayor and council of the city of Leavenworth in their corporate capacity, and the objection is that it should have been directed to the persons who were mayor and councilmen. The principle upon which the decision in the other case rests is conclusive of this, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is consequently affirmed, and the cause remanded with authority, if necessary, to so modify the order which has been entered, in respect to the time for the levy and collection of the tax, as to make the writ effective for the end to be accomplished. Affirmed,.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1911)…ile the board is proceeded against in its corporate capacity, the individual members are punished in their natural capacities for failure to do what the law requires of them as the representatives of the corporation.” See also Leavenworth v. Kinney, 154 U. S. 642; People v. Sturtevant, 9 N. Y. 277. The appellant asserts his privilege against self-crimination. There is no question, of course, of oral testimony, for he was not required to give any. Undoubtedly it also,' protected him against the compulsory pr…
-
Ferris v. Wilbur, 27 F.2d 262 (4th Cir. 1928)…valid act of'the other coordinate branch, the legislative. It is elementary that courts will not enjoin as a músanse [*265] action authorized by valid legislative authority. 20 R. C. L. 500; Northern Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U. S. 635, 640 (25 L. Ed. 336); note 107 Am. St. Rep. 220. Certainly injunction should not be granted where the alleged nuisance arises out of action taken under legislative authority exercised under one of the first mandates of the Constitution, “to provide for the common defen…
-
Foster v. Herley, 330 F.2d 87 (6th Cir. 1964)…he passing of legal title and does not include damage to property not resulting in the passing of legal title. Bedford v. United States, 192 U.S. 217, 224, 24 S.Ct. 238, 48 L.Ed. 414; Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 9 Otto 635, 642, 99 U.S. 635, 642, 25 L.Ed. 336; Kanakanui v. United States, 244 F. 923, C.A.9th. See: California State Auto. Ass’n Inter-Insurance Bureau v. Maloney, 341 U.S. 105, 111, 71 S.Ct. 601, 95 L.Ed. 788. The plaintiff contends that although it may be the rule that a condemnor of proper…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Commissioners v. Sellew, 99 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1878)