MITCHELL

v.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LEAVENWORTH COUNTY, KANSAS

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

• Chisholm v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 79 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1935)
  …d taxation will not establish his liability if the transaction docs not do so without it. It is true that that court has at times shown itself indisposed to assist such efforts, Mitchell v. Board of Commissioners of Leavenworth County, 91 U. S. 206, 23 L. Ed. 302, and has spoken of them disparagingly, Shotwell v. Moore, 129 U. S. 590, 9 S. Ct. 362, 32 L. Ed. 827; .but it has never, so far as we can find, made that purpose the basis of liability; and it has often said that it could not be such. The question a…
• Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc'y v. San Francisco, 200 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1906)
• Shotwell v. Moore, 129 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1889)
  …avoiding, the payment of taxes pn the same, such notes are taxable in the county where such taxpayer resides; and such deposit or transfer is a fraud on the revenues of the county.” And this court in Mitchell v. Commissioners of Leavenworth County, 91 U. S. 206, denounces conduct precisely similar to that of the plaintiff in error in this case, in the following language: “ United States notes are exempt from taxation by or under state or municipal authority; but a court of equity will not knowingly use it…