Bd. of Comm'rs of Knox Cty. v. Wallace, 16 L. Ed. 211 (1859). · Go Syfert
Search
Bd. of Comm'rs of Knox Cty. v. Wallace, 16 L. Ed. 211 (1859). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
53 citation events across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sun Oil Co. v. M/V Wartenfels (paed, 1966-02-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1901 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1901 1963 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Sun Oil Co. v. M/V Wartenfels
E.D. Pa. · 1966 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chamberlain v. Ward, 21 How. 548 , 62 U.S. 548 , 16 L.Ed. 211 (1859); Circle Line Sightseeing Yachts v. City of New York, 283 F.2d 811 (2d Cir. 1960).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Tide Water Associated Oil Co. v. The Syosset the Carryall. Townsend v. The Tycol
3rd Cir. · 1953 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also the hypothetical situation supposed in Chamberlain v. Ward, 1858, 21 How. 548 , 16 L.Ed. 211 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." G. B. Zigler Co. v. Barker Barge Line
5th Cir. · 1948 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Chamberlain v. Ward, 21 How. 548 , at page 567, 16 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The Board of Commissioners of the County of Knox, Plaintiffs in Error,
v.
David C. Wallace
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 11, 1859.
16 L. Ed. 211
It was argued by Mr. S. W. Thompson for the plaintiffs in ' error, and Mr. McLean for the defendant.
Daniel, Nelson.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the' Circuit Court of the TJnited States for the district of Indiana.

The suit was brought by Wallace against the board, upon several coupons, for instalments of interest which had been attached to certain bonds issued by the defendants to the Ohio and Mississippi R. R. Co. The coupons were owned by the plaintiff, and had been duly presented for payment, which was refused. The defendants plead the general issue, and six special pleas, to which there were replications, except the second and sixth pleas, to which there were demurrers.

The court sustained the demurrers. There were afterwards amendments and demurrers to pleadings not very intelligible in the record, and seem not to have been relied on by either party. The case was tried upon the general issue, and the facts disclosed upon the trial were substantially the same, mutatis mutandis^ as those which were proved or admitted in the previous case of Aspinwall and others against these same defendants. After the evidence was close.d, the defendants presented ten prayers to the court, upon each of which instructions were given. It is unnecessary to go through them; the questions involved have already been exámined in the' case above mentioned, and th,e result there arrived at affirms the judgment in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice DANIEL dissented.