Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/150/84/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/150/84/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Wells v. Goodnow's Administrator, 150 U.S. 84 (1893)
Wells v. Goodnow's Administrator
No. 160
Submitted October 10, 1893
Decided October 16, 1893
150 U.S. 84
Syllabus
This case is dismissed upon the authority of Chapman v. Goodnow's Administrator, 123 U. S. 540.
Motion to dismiss. This action was commenced in the Supreme Court of Iowa to recover taxes that had been paid by the Iowa Homestead Company while in possession and occupancy of land in Iowa, which was afterwards adjudged to have been at that time the property of the defendant. Judgment in the trial court for the plaintiff, which was affirmed by the supreme court of the state on appeal. In announcing its judgment, that court said:
"The facts in this case are the same as in Goodnow v. Stryker, 61 Ia. 261, and following that case, the judgment of the district court must be affirmed. There are members of the court who think the cited case was incorrectly decided, but under the well settled rule of stare decisis, they think we must adheres thereto, especially so because of the many peculiar facts and many cases which have been determined by the court based on the subject matter upon which this action is grounded."
The defendant below thereupon sued out a writ of error to this Court, which writ the defendant in error moved to dismiss on the ground that no federal question was involved.
