Keokuk & Western R. Co. v. Scotland County, 152 U.S. 317 (1894)
U.S. Supreme Court
Keokuk & Western R. Co. v. Scotland County, 152 U.S. 317 (1894)Keokuk and Western Railroad Company v. Scotland County
No. 183
Argued December 21-22, 1893
Decided March 12, 1894
152 U.S. 317
Syllabus
Keokuk & Western Railroad Company v. Missouri, ante, 152 U. S. 301, followed.
This was a bill to enjoin the county courts and collectors of revenue for the Counties of Clarke, Scotland, and Schuyler, in the State of Missouri, from levying and collecting taxes on the railway property owned by the plaintiff in these counties.
U.S. Supreme Court
Keokuk & Western R. Co. v. Scotland County, 152 U.S. 317 (1894)Keokuk and Western Railroad Company v. Scotland County
No. 183
Argued December 21-22, 1893
Decided March 12, 1894
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Syllabus
Keokuk & Western Railroad Company v. Missouri, ante, 152 U. S. 301, followed.
This was a bill to enjoin the county courts and collectors of revenue for the Counties of Clarke, Scotland, and Schuyler, in the State of Missouri, from levying and collecting taxes on the railway property owned by the plaintiff in these counties.
MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case differs from the one just decided, ante, 152 U. S. 301, only in the fact that this is a bill in equity, filed by the corporation whose property is sought to be taxed, to restrain the defendants from levying or collecting any taxes for the years 1883 to 1887, inclusive, upon the ground that the circuit court for the Eastern District of Missouri in the Secor case, and also the supreme court of the state, had held the property of the company not to be subject to taxation.
As the questions involved in the two cases are precisely the same, the decree of the court below dismissing the bill was correct, and the same is therefore
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE BREWER dissented.
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.