Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
CITIZENS' TELEPHONE COMPANY OF JACKSON v. FULLER, AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 1913 — 229 U.S. 335 · caselaw · US
Tax
CITIZENS' TELEPHONE COMPANY OF JACKSON v. FULLER, AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
229 U.S. 33557 L. Ed. 1215·Supreme Court of the United States·1913
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
CITIZENS' TELEPHONE COMPANY OF JACKSON v. FULLER, AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES, POR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OP MICHIGAN.
No. 285.
Argued May 2, 1913.
Decided June 10, 1913.
Decided on authority of preceding case. -
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Thomas P. Bradfield and Mr. Jacob Kleinhans for appellant submitted.
Mr. Roger I. Wykes, with whom Mr. Grant Fellows was on the brief, for''appellee.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice McKenna]
Mr. Justice McKenna
delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellant is a telephone company, located at the City of Jackson, State of Michigan, doing an extensive' business: It brought this bill in equity to restrain the collection of a tax levied under the laws considered in the preceding case, Citizens’ Telephone Co. v. Fuller, ante, p. 322. It is substantially like the bill in the latter case.
A demurrer was filed to the bill and, being overruled, an answer was filed. After hearing, a decree was entered dismissing the bill. This appeal was then taken.
The questions presented are the same as those presented in the preceding case and were submitted at the same time and on the same argument. On- the -authority of the opinion in that cáse the decree is
Affirmed,