TAYLOR AND MARSHALL
v.
BECKHAM
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.
Taylor and Marshall sought injunctions to prevent Beckham and others from interfering with their offices, claiming entitlement to positions in the Kentucky state government, but the Supreme Court dismissed their writ of error after lower courts had ruled in Beckham's favor, adopting the conclusions from a companion case decided the same day.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller :
These were suits in equity brought by Taylor and Marshall against Beckham, and one Carter, asserting himself to be the president pro tempore of the Senate of Kentucky, with the right to preside over that body though Marshall was present, in which complainants prayed for injunctions restraining defendants from interfering with complainants in their offices. These suits were heard with the case of Beckham v. Taylor and Marshall, just decided. When the Circuit Court of Jefferson County reached the conclusion that Beckham was entitled to the office of Governor and entered judgment of ouster, it dismissed the suits. From the decrees appeals were taken to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, where they were affirmed, and thereafter a writ of error from this court was allowed.
It results from the conclusions announced in the preceding case that the writ of error must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
Mr.-Justice McKenna concurred in the result.
Mr. Justice Brewer and Mr. Justice Brown concurred in a dissent for reasons stated in their dissent to Taylor <& Marshall v. Beckham {Mo. 1), ante, 548.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissented for reasons .stated in his dissent to Taylor da Marshall v. Beckham {Mo. 1), ante, 548.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Thornton v. Carter, 109 F.2d 316 (8th Cir. 1940)…ol Co., 160 U.S. 247, 255, 16 S.Ct. 291, 40 L.Ed. 414; In re Potts, 166 U.S. 263, 267, 17 S.Ct. 520, 41 L.Ed. 994; Illinois v. Illinois Central R. Co., 184 U.S. 77, 91, 92, 22 S.Ct. 300, 46 L.Ed. 440; Ex parte Union Steamboat Co., 178 U.S. 317, 319, 20 S.Ct. 904, 44 L. Ed. 1084; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Guardian Trust Co., 281 U.S. 1, 10, 11, 50 S.Ct. 194, 74 L.Ed. 659; Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 168, 59 S.Ct. 777, 83 L.Ed. 1184; Ruggles v. Buckley, 6 Cir., 192 F. 907, 909; Bisse…
-
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, 383 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1967)…gg, 148 U.S. 228, 13 S.Ct. 611, 37 L.Ed. 432 (1893). Of course it does not apply to matters left open by the mandate, e. g., Sprague v. Ticonic Nat’l Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 59 S.Ct. 777, 83 L.Ed. 1184 (1939); Ex Parte Union Steamboat Co., 178 U.S. 317, 20 S.Ct. 904, 44 L.Ed. 1084 (1900); In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247, 16 S.Ct. 291, 40 L.Ed. 414 (1895),13 or when the mandate has been amended to permit the lower court to consider a question. See Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron, 334 U.S. 446, 477,…
-
Ill. Bell Tel. Co. v. Slattery, 102 F.2d 58 (7th Cir. 1939)…ne not considered by the Supreme Court in its opinion, or directions given with reference thereto in its mandate, the court was not foreclosed by lack of jurisdiction to give consideration thereto. In Ex parte Union Steamboat Company, 178 U.S. 317, 20 S.Ct. 904, 44 L.Ed. 1084, the court on page 319, 20 S.Ct. on page 905, said: “The inferior court is justified in considering and deciding any question left open by the mandate and opinion of this court, and its decision upon such matter can only be reviewed…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence