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.
WHEELER v. PLUMAS COUNTY, 1905 — 196 U.S. 562 · caselaw · US
Tax
WHEELER v. PLUMAS COUNTY
196 U.S. 56249 L. Ed. 599·Supreme Court of the United States·1905
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
WHEELER v. PLUMAS COUNTY.
CERTIORARI,TO THE- CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
No. 122.
Submitted January 12, 1905.—
Decided February 20, 1905.
Decided on authority of Flanigan v. Sierra County, ante, p. 553.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. C. C. Cole, Mr. Joseph C. Campbell and Mr. Thomas B. Breeze for petitioners.
Mr. U. S. Webb and Mr. L. N. Peter for respondent.
Submitted simultaneously with Flanigan v. Sierra County. For abstract of arguments see ante, p. 553.
[MAJORITY — Mb.- Justice McKenna]
Mb.- Justice McKenna
delivered the opinion of the court,
This case was submitted with Flanigan v. Sierra County. It is also an action for the recovery of a sum of $2,100, alleged to be due for license tax, and $50 damages. The taxes were imposed under an ordinance of the county of Plumas,. substantially similar to the ordinance passed on in Flanigan v. Sierra County. The action was. brought in the Superior Court of Plumas County and removed, upon the petition of the petitioners herein, to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of California. In that court, petitioners demurred td the complaint, which, being overruled, and they declining to answer,, judgment was taken against them by default. It was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
The questions are identical with those passed on in Flanigan v. Sierra County, and on the authority of that case the
Judgment is reversed and cause remanded for further 'proceedings.