Chicot County v. Sherwood
Citations
- 148 U.S. 529
- 13 S. Ct. 695
- 37 L. Ed. 546
- 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2249
Syllabus
<p>An action will lie in a Circuit Court of the United States in the State of Arkansas at the suit of a citizen of New York, against a county in Arkansas, to recover on bonds and coupons issued by the county to aid in the construction of a railroad and held by the citizen of New York, notwithstanding the provisions in the act of the Legislature of Arkansas of February 27,1879, repealing all laws authorizing counties within the State to be sued; requiring all demands against them to be presented to the County Courts of the several counties for allowance or rejection; and allowing appeals to be prosecuted from the decisions of those courts.</p> <p>An answer to a declaration on such bonds and coupons setting out the statutory provisions under which the bonds were issued and averring that the election under which they were claimed to have been authorized -was not a free and fair election but was a sham “'as shown by papers filed with the county clerk,” and reciting various irregularities which were alleged ' to appear “by reference to certified copies of the papers sent into the clerk’s office” from some of the various precincts of the county, and con-' eluding “ and so the county says that there was in fact no election held in said county on February 27,1872, to determine whether or not the county would subscribe to the capital of said railroad company and issue bonds to pay the same” presents no issuable question of fact, going to the merits of the suit, and'if demurred to, the demurrer should be sustained.</p> <p>While matters of fact, well pleaded, are admitted by a demurrer, conclusions of law are not so admitted.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- rejecting state legislature's attempt to insulate county from federal jurisdiction by providing that county could only be sued in county courts
- rejecting state legislature’s attempt to insulate county from federal jurisdiction by providing that county could only be sued in county courts
- “The courts of the United States are bound to proceed to judgment and to afford redress to suitors before them in every case to which their jurisdiction extends.”
- subsequently filed state civil suit does not invoke Younger abstention
- subsequently filed state civil suit does not invoke Younger abstention
- \But the courts of the United States are bound to proceed to judgment and to afford redress to suitors before them in every case to which their jurisdiction extends. They cannot abdicate their authority or duty in any case in favor of another jurisdiction.\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Jackson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.