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.
BALTZER AND TAAKS v. NORTH CAROLINA, 1896 — 161 U.S. 246 · caselaw · US
General
BALTZER AND TAAKS v. NORTH CAROLINA
161 U.S. 24640 L. Ed. 687·Supreme Court of the United States·1896
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
BALTZER AND TAAKS v. NORTH CAROLINA.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
No. 52.
Argued February 3, 4, 1896.
Decided March 2, 1896.
Baltzer v. North Carolina, ante 240, followed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Simon Sterne for plaintiff in error.
Mr. James E. Shepherd and Mr. Charles M. Busbee, (with whom was Mr. F. 1. Osborne on the brief,) for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice White]
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the court.
The claim presented in this case to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina differs somewhat from that relied on iii that court in the case of Hermann R. Baltzer v. The State of North Carolina, No. 93 of the docket of this court. The question of the power in the state court to give the relief, prayed for was by it decided adversely to the plaintiffs in error upon grounds identical with those considered by us in the case just decided. Our reasons for affirmance there expressed are conclusive of the issues here, and consequently the judgment is
Affirmed.