TOWN OF GENOA v. WOODRUFF, 92 U.S. 502 (1875)

U.S. Supreme Court

TOWN OF GENOA v. WOODRUFF, 92 U.S. 502 (1875)

92 U.S. 502

TOWN OF GENOA
v.
WOODRUFF ET AL.

October Term, 1875

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.

Mr. H. L. Comstock for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. David Wright, contra. [ Town of Genoa v. Woodruff 92 U.S. 502 (1875)

MR. JUSTICE STRONGdelivered the opinion of the court.

Twenty-six errors have been assigned in this case, not one of which can be sustained. All which have the least plausibility have been considered and declared unfounded in Town of Venice v. Murdock, supra, p. 494; and the others might well be dismissed without special notice. The thirteenth complains that the circuit judge decided that the plaintiffs could recover interest upon the coupons from the time they fell due. That the ruling was correct is perfectly plain. It was in entire accordance with the decisions generally of the State courts and also of this court.

The other assignments have either been answered in Town of Venice v. Murdock, or they are totally without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER, MR. JUSTICE DAVIS, and MR. JUSTICE FIELD, dissented.


U.S. Supreme Court

TOWN OF GENOA v. WOODRUFF, 92 U.S. 502 (1875)

 92 U.S. 502

TOWN OF GENOA
v.
WOODRUFF ET AL.

October Term, 1875

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.

Mr. H. L. Comstock for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. David Wright, contra. [ Town of Genoa v. Woodruff 92 U.S. 502 (1875)

MR. JUSTICE STRONGdelivered the opinion of the court.

Twenty-six errors have been assigned in this case, not one of which can be sustained. All which have the least plausibility have been considered and declared unfounded in Town of Venice v. Murdock, supra, p. 494; and the others might well be dismissed without special notice. The thirteenth complains that the circuit judge decided that the plaintiffs could recover interest upon the coupons from the time they fell due. That the ruling was correct is perfectly plain. It was in entire accordance with the decisions generally of the State courts and also of this court.

The other assignments have either been answered in Town of Venice v. Murdock, or they are totally without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER, MR. JUSTICE DAVIS, and MR. JUSTICE FIELD, dissented.

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.