CURRIE v. U S EX REL. JACOBS, 129 U.S. 44 (1889)

U.S. Supreme Court

CURRIE v. U S EX REL. JACOBS, 129 U.S. 44 (1888)

129 U.S. 44

CURRIE, Mayor, et al.
v.
UNITED STATES ex rel. JACOBS et al.
Argued October 17, 1888 Decided January 7, 1889

FULLER, C. J.

In this case a peremptory writ of mandamus was awarded, commanding the levy of a special tax for the payment of the judgment rendered in favor of Jacobs & Smith, and against the city of Shreveport, just reversed in the preceding case, ante, 210, for want of jurisdiction. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.

So ordered.


U.S. Supreme Court

CURRIE v. U S EX REL. JACOBS, 129 U.S. 44 (1888)

129 U.S. 44

CURRIE, Mayor, et al.
v.
UNITED STATES ex rel. JACOBS et al.
Argued October 17, 1888 Decided January 7, 1889

FULLER, C. J.

In this case a peremptory writ of mandamus was awarded, commanding the levy of a special tax for the payment of the judgment rendered in favor of Jacobs & Smith, and against the city of Shreveport, just reversed in the preceding case, ante, 210, for want of jurisdiction. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.

So ordered.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law 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.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.