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.
KEOKUK AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. SCOTLAND COUNTY, 1894 — 152 U.S. 317 · caselaw · US
Corporations
KEOKUK AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. SCOTLAND COUNTY
152 U.S. 31738 L. Ed. 457·Supreme Court of the United States·1894
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Brewer dissented.
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
KEOKUK AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. SCOTLAND COUNTY.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
No. 183.
Argued December 21, 22,1893.
Decided March 12, 1894.
Keokuk & Western Railroad Company v. Missouri, ante, 801, 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. Felix T. Hughes and Mr. John F. Dillon, (with whom was Mr. Thomas De Witt (Juyler on the brief,) for appellant.
Mr. F. L. Schofield, (with whom were Mr, John A. White-side and Mr. T. L. Montgomery on the brief,) for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Brown]
Mr. Justice Brown
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case differs from the one just decided, ante, 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 Seoor ease, 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.