KNOX COUNTY COURT
v.
UNITED STATES EX REL. GEO. W. HARSHMAN; SAME V. UNITED STATES EX REL. DAVIS; SAME V. UNITED STATES EX REL. WELLS AND OTHERS; MASON COUNTY COURT V. HUIDEKOPER, RELATOR; BAKER, TREASURER, V. UNITED STATES EX REL. DAVIS

U.S. | 1883-11-12
109 U.S. 229 Supreme Court of the United States (1883) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 27 L. Ed. 914 · 3 S. Ct. 131 · SCDB 1883-039 · 1883 U.S. LEXIS 963
Cited by 3 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court affirmed prior decisions holding that counties are liable for bond debts and must pay any balance remaining after application of special tax proceeds from their general funds raised by ordinary taxation. The Court rejected arguments to overrule United States v. County of Clark and related precedents, maintaining that mandamus could properly be used to compel county officials to draw warrants on the county treasury for unpaid bond judgments.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

In United States v. County of Clark, 96 U. S. 211, it was decided, at the October term, 1877, that bonds of the character of those involved in the present suits were debts of the county, and that for any balance remaining due on account of principal or interest after the application of the proceeds of the special tax of one-twentieth of one per cent., the holders were entitled to payment out of the, general funds of the county. This, we all agree, means that the payment of this balance is demand-able out of funds raised by taxation for the ordinary county uses. The mandamus applied for in that case was one “ requiring the county court and the justices thereof to direct the clerk of the county to draw a warrant on the county treasurer for the balance of the judgment remaining unpaid, so that he might be enabled, on its presentation, to have it paid in its order out of the county treasury,” and there was no fund out of which the payment could be made, except that raised by taxation for ordinary county uses. By the judgment of this court such a mandamus was awarded.

At the next term, in 1878, the point thus decided was explicitly stated in United States v. County of Macon, 99 U. S. 582, 589, and in Macon County v. Huidekoper, Id. 592, a majority of the court adhered to the decision and ordered judgment accordingly. It was conceded on the argument that all the judgments now under consideration must' be affirmed unless these cases are overruled. This a majority of the court are unwilling to do, and judgments of affirmance are, consequently, ordered.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • State of Mo. v. Winterbottom, 123 U.S. 215 (U.S. 1887)
  • MacOn Cnty. v. Huidekoper, 134 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1890)
    …s, which included that liability, the county was authorized to levy a tax of fifty cents on every one hundred-dollars of valuation of taxable .property in the county. United States v. County of Clark, 96 U. S. 211 Knox County Court v. United States, 109 U. S. 229. ' . In this case it appears that for the year 1885 the county had levied only thirty cents on every one hundred dollars of property, but it set .up in. its answer that it had levied fifty cents, treating 'the twenty cents which had been levied by…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw