STEPHEN V. R ABLEMAN, PLFF. IN ER.,
v.
SHERMAN M. BOOTH
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 consolidated two related cases involving Stephen Ableman and Sherman Booth that raised the same constitutional questions, holding that the cases must be argued together at a future term rather than separately, as the legal issues in both cases were interdependent and arose from the same transaction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.
Upon looking into the transcript in this case, we find that the questions of constitutional law which it involves arose in a preliminary proceeding in the case between the same parties, o.f which we have just spoken. In that case, the whole subject was disposed of in the state court, and the principal question in it is precisely the same with that which is presented in this, which the attorney-general proposes to argue. The two cases ought to be argued together. It would hardly be proper for the court, where questions of so much interest are concerned, to hear a portion of them at one term and a portion of them at another. All of the questions which are involved in the two eases have grown out of one transaction, and depend upon the same facts, and it is impossible to decide one without disposing of the principal question in the other. The court, therefore, will not hear the argument in these eases separately. They must be argued together. And as the principal case is not before the court in a form that will enable the court to hear it at the present term, this preliminary portion of it must be continued until the next . term, to be argued when the whole subject is ready for hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caruth Corp. v. United States, 865 F.2d 644 (5th Cir. 1989)…65 (1937) (taxpayer’s gift conveyed entire interest in income stream, and so did not fall under assignment of income doctrine); United States v. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co., 348 F. 2d 278, 285 (5th Cir.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 973, 86 S.Ct. 538, 15 L.Ed. 465 (1966). If the taxpayer carves income or a partial interest out of the asset, and retains something for himself, the doctrine applies. P & G Lake, 356 U.S. at 265 & n. 5, 78 S.Ct. at 694 & n. 5 (assignment of income doctrine applied because the ta…