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.
DALLAS COUNTY v. HUIDEKOPER; SAME v. DAVOL, 1880 — 154 U.S. 655 · caselaw · US
General
DALLAS COUNTY v. HUIDEKOPER; SAME v. DAVOL
154 U.S. 65525 L. Ed. 974·Supreme Court of the United States·1880
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
DALLAS COUNTY v. HUIDEKOPER. SAME v. DAVOL.
APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURÍ OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
Nos. 224 and 226.
Argued March 25, 1880.
Decided April 5, 1880.
Dallas County v. Huidekoper, ante, 654, followed.
Mr. S. H. Boyd, Mr. A. D. Matthews and Mr. B. L. Brush for appellant.
Mr. Joseph Shippen for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Mr; Chief Justice Waite]
Mr; Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
These are suits in equity to enjoin the collection of judgments against Dallas County on coupons for interest attached to the same class of bonds just considered in Dallas County v. Huidekoper, No. 225, ante, 654, and relief.' is asked on the ground that the charter of the railroad company had expired before any organization was effected under it, and that this fact was not known to the county until after the judgment was rendered. After what has been said in the other case, it is clear that the bills were properly dismissed without considering the power of a court of- equity to sustain such a suit, and the decree in each of the cases is consequently Affirmed.