WEIGHT ET ALS.
v.
SILL
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 that Ohio's 1845 banking charter provision exempting the State Bank of Ohio from taxation constituted a binding contract with the state, and that a subsequent 1859 tax assessment law impaired that contract in violation of the Constitution. The Court declined to reconsider the issue, which had been settled by consistent prior precedent in multiple cases.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice SWAYNE.
This is a suit in equity, brought here by appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. The questions presented are, whether the 60th section of the Act of the Legislature of Ohio, entitled “An Act to incorporate the State Bank of Ohio and other Banking Companies,” passed February 24th, 1845, constitutes a contract upon the subject of taxation, which is binding upon the State; and, if so, wheiner that contract. is impaired by the subsequent Act of the Legislature, passed April 5th, 1859, entitled “An Act for the assessment and taxation of all, the property in this State, and for levying taxes thereon according to its true value in money.”
These questions came before this Court the first time in the Piqua Branch of the State Bank of Ohio vs. Knoop, (16 How., 369), and were resolved in tbe affirmative. They have since been repeatedly before the Court, and • have, uniformly, been decided in the same way. Dodge vs. Woolsey, (18 How., 331); Mechanics' and Traders' Bank vs. Debolt, (18 How., 380); Jefferson Branch Bank vs. Skelley, (1 Black, 436); Franklin Branch Bank vs. The State of Ohio, (1 Black, 474).
Whatever differences of opinion may have existed in this Court originally in regard to these questions, or might now exist if they were open for.reconsideration, it is sufficient to say that they are concluedd by these adjudications. The argument upon both sides was exhausted in the earlier cases. It could subserve no useful purpose again to-examine the subject.
The decree of the-Court below is affirmed, with costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Andrews v. Hovey, 124 U.S. 694 (U.S. 1888)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sterling Elec. Motors, Inc., 109 F.2d 194 (9th Cir. 1940)…y the court, sua sponte, though not raised by the pleadings or suggested by the counsel. Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, 15 L.Ed. 158; Hipp v. Babin, 19 How. 271, 278, 15 L.Ed. 633, 635; Parker v. Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton & Woolen Co., 2 Black 545, 17 L. Ed. 333.” Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 184 U.S. 199, 235, 22 S.Ct. 308, 322, 46 L.Ed. 499. The Consolidated Edison case also cites with approval to the same point from Mallow v. Hinde, 12 Wheat. 193, page 198, 6 L.Ed. 599: “We do not put this case…
-
Moore et ux. v. United States, 182 F.2d 332 (5th Cir. 1950)…medy at law. See: Town of Grand Chute v. Winegar, 15 Wall. 373, 21 L.Ed. 174; Insurance Co. v. Bailey, 13 Wall. 616, 20 L.Ed. 501; Hipp et al. v. Babin et al., 19 How. 271, 15 L.Ed. 633; Parker v. Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton & Woolen Co., 2 Black 545, 17 L.Ed. 333. . Restitutionary relief may be awarded in tort actions such as replevin, ejectment, and trover. See “Restatement of tho Law of Restitution”, pp. 522-523. . A claim to a resütutionary right is not a ground of equitable jurisdiction. In order to be…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331 (U.S. 1855)
- Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, 1 Black 436 (U.S. 1861)
- The Piqua Branch of the State Bank of Ohio v. Knoop, 16 How. 369 (U.S. 1853)
- Franklin Branch Bank v. The State of Ohio, 1 Black 474 (U.S. 1862)
- The Mechanics' & Traders' Bank v. Debolt, 18 How. 380 (U.S. 1855)