Ensminger v. Powers
Citations
- 108 U.S. 292
- 2 S. Ct. 643
- 27 L. Ed. 732
- 1883 U.S. LEXIS 1039
Syllabus
<p>Appeal — Decree—Exceptions—Practice—Taxation—Statutes.</p> <p>A decree, in a suit in equity, set forth a hearing on pleadings and proofs, and awarded relief, but it ordered that a bill of exceptions signed by the court be filed as a part of the record. The bill of exceptions showed that the judge who held the court refused to permit the counsel for plaintiff to argue the cause, and allowed the counsel for the defendant to determine whether the ease fell within a prior decision of another judge,’and refused to determine that question himself, and then directed that the decree be entered, which was in favor of the defendant. On a bill of -review, filed by the plaintiff : Held, that the decree must be held for naught.</p> <p>A decree was made by a circuit court, in December, 1873, against two plaintiffs. In January,.1874, they appealed to this court. In December, 1875, the appeal was dismissed for the failure of the appellants to file and docket the cause in this court. In September, 1876, a bill of review was filed for errors in law : Held, that the bill was filed in time, though not within two years from the making of the decree, because the control of the circuit court over the decree was suspended during the pendency of the appeal.</p> <p>A lot of land, part of the navy yard at Memphis, Tennessee, not under lease to a private party, being exempt from State and county taxation by section 9 of the act of the legislature of Tennessee, which took effect February 20th, 1860, ch. 70, Private Acts of 1859-60, 284, was, by section 13 of the act of Congress of August 5th, 1861, ch. 45, 12 Stat. 297, exempt from taxation under the direct tax on land authorized by that act.</p>
Judges: Blatchford
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. And Others. 1Supreme Court· 1884-05-05· cited 111×
- Central Trust Co. v. Grant Locomotive WorksSupreme Court· 1890-04-21· cited 67×
- State v. MoreyOregon Supreme Court· 1894-01-09· cited 54×
- Nelson v. BaileyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1939-07-07· cited 30×
- State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1984-10-30· cited 23×
- Kimberly v. ArmsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio· 1889-11-22· cited 21×
- Continental Oil Co. v. Osage Oil & Refining Co.Tenth Circuit· 1934-02-03· cited 19×
- Omaha Electric Light & Power Co. v. City of OmahaEighth Circuit· 1914-05-15· cited 18×
- In re HolmesEighth Circuit· 1905-10-25· cited 17×
- Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. McSherry Mfg. Co.Sixth Circuit· 1907-07-18· cited 15×
- The Pietro CampanellaD. Maryland· 1942-10-13· cited 12×
- First Nat. Bank v. State Nat. BankNinth Circuit· 1904-05-02· cited 11×
- Rector v. FitzgeraldEighth Circuit· 1894-01-29· cited 11×
- State ex rel. Shrader v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Florida· 1893-06-15· cited 10×
- Hendryx v. PerkinsFirst Circuit· 1902-02-13· cited 10×
- United States v. BackofenThird Circuit· 1949-06-30· cited 9×
- Fraenkl v. Cerecedo HermanosSupreme Court· 1910-02-21· cited 6×
- United States v. KlapprottD. New Jersey· 1947-02-07· cited 4×
- Peeke v. Citizens Banking Co.Sixth Circuit· 1935-12-06· cited 4×
- Kaw Valley Drainage Dist. v. Union Pac. R. Co.Eighth Circuit· 1908-05-30· cited 4×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced 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.