DALLAS COUNTY v. HUIDEKOPER, 154 U.S. 655 (1880)
U.S. Supreme Court
DALLAS COUNTY v. HUIDEKOPER, 154 U.S. 655 (1880)
154 U.S. 655
DALLAS COUNTY, MISSOURI,
v.
ALFRED HUIDEKOPER.
SAME
v.
WILLIAM H. DAVOL.
Nos. 224 and 226.
April 5, 1880
S. H. Boyd, A. D. Matthews, and B. L. Brush, for appellant.
Joseph Shippen, for appellees.
Mr. Chief Justice WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.
These are suits in equity to enjoin the collection of judgments against Dallas county on coupons for interest attached to the same class of bonds just considered in Dallas Co. v. Huidekoper (No. 225) 154 U.S. 654, 14 Sup. Ct. 1190, and relief is asked on the ground that the charter of the railroad company had expired before any organization was effected under it, and that this fact was not known to the county until after the judgment was rendered. After what has been said in the other case, it is clear that the bills were properly dismissed without considering the power of a court of equity to sustain such a suit, and the decree in each of the cases is consequently affirmed.
U.S. Supreme Court
DALLAS COUNTY v. HUIDEKOPER, 154 U.S. 655 (1880)
DALLAS COUNTY, MISSOURI,
v.
ALFRED HUIDEKOPER.
SAME
v.
WILLIAM H. DAVOL.
Nos. 224 and 226.
April 5, 1880
S. H. Boyd, A. D. Matthews, and B. L. Brush, for appellant.
Joseph Shippen, for appellees.
Mr. Chief Justice WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.
These are suits in equity to enjoin the collection of judgments against Dallas county on coupons for interest attached to the same class of bonds just considered in Dallas Co. v. Huidekoper (No. 225) 154 U.S. 654, 14 Sup. Ct. 1190, and relief is asked on the ground that the charter of the railroad company had expired before any organization was effected under it, and that this fact was not known to the county until after the judgment was rendered. After what has been said in the other case, it is clear that the bills were properly dismissed without considering the power of a court of equity to sustain such a suit, and the decree in each of the cases is consequently affirmed.
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.
