The Assessors v. Osbornes
76 U.S. 567 (1869)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

The Assessors v. Osbornes, 76 U.S. 9 Wall. 567 567 (1869)

The Assessors v. Osbornes

76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 567

Syllabus

In which the first two points adjudged in the preceding case, and the points adjudged in Insurance Company v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 541, are affirmed, including the point adjudged in this last case, to-wit, that where jurisdiction depends wholly on a statute, suits brought during the existence of the statute fall with its repeal.

In this case, which came on error from the Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York, the same condition of enactment and repeal of statutes presented itself as in the last case. It is set forth, supra, pp. <|76 U.S. 560|>560-562. It makes the fundamental part of this case as of that. And the reader who desires to read the report of this case as well as the report of that will please to recall it thence or refer to it there.

Page 76 U. S. 568

In the present case, D. & J. Osborne, manufacturers, brought suit to June Term 1866, against one Gates, assessor of internal revenue, to recover damages for his having illegally assessed against them taxes upon certain articles manufactured by them. A case was stated for the judgment of the court. In one clause of it, it was agreed that

"The plaintiffs, for several years past, have been manufacturers of reaping and mowing machines at the City of Auburn and within the 24th Collection District of the State of New York,"

and in another clause that "the defendant, as the assessor of the 24th district, did require of the plaintiffs that they should return &c., the number of tons," &c.

In the declaration, a similar representation was made as to the citizenship of the parties. It alleged that the plaintiffs bring "their certain declaration against Joseph Gates, the Assessor of Internal Revenue for the 24th District of the State of New York, which is in and within the said Northern District of New York," and it thus began:

"And whereas the said D. M. Osborn & Company, so being the exclusive manufacturers &c., at their said manufacturing establishment in the said City of Auburn and within the said 24th Collection District of the said state. . . ."

The court gave judgment for the plaintiffs, and the government brought the case here on error.

Page 76 U. S. 569

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.