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.
UNITED STATES ex rel. JONES v. COUNTY COURT OF MACON COUNTY, 1892 — 144 U.S. 568 · caselaw · US
Tax
UNITED STATES ex rel. JONES v. COUNTY COURT OF MACON COUNTY
144 U.S. 56836 L. Ed. 544·Supreme Court of the United States·1892
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
UNITED STATES ex rel. JONES v. COUNTY COURT OF MACON COUNTY.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
No. 257.
Argued March 29, 30, 1892.
Decided April 11, 1892.
The judgment below is affirmed upon the authority of United, States v. County of Macon, 99 U. S. 582.
This was a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the levy of a tax to satisfy a judgment recovered against Macon County upon bonds issued by the county. The bonds were of the same issue which was before this court in United States v. County of Maeon, 99 U. S. 582, and the remedy sought for was the same remedy which was prayed for in that suit. The court below dismissed the writ upon the authority of that case.
Mr. George A. Sanders for plaintiff in error. Mr. T. K. SIcinker and Mr. Joseph Shippen filed briefs for same.
Mr. Ben Eli Guthrie for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — The Chief Justice :]
The Chief Justice :
The judgment is affirmed upon the authority of United States v. County of Macon, 99 U. S. 582.