Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Jones v. Box Elder County

67 F.2d 900

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1933-12-04
Topic
general

BRATTON, Circuit Judge. The facts in this ease were stated in detail on the former appeal. 52 E.(2d) 346. It, therefore, is unnecessary to restate them. This court sustained the jurisdiction of the District Court of the subject-matter in controversy and likewise sustained ' the tax liens involved for certain years, with interest, penalties, and costs, without prejudice to a further suit for the recovery of the taxes, interest, penalties, and costs assessed for other years. Certiorari was denied. 285 U.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Jones v. Box Elder County. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
JONES v. BOX ELDER COUNTY, UTAH,67 F.2d 900(10th Cir. 1933)
JONES et al. v. BOX ELDER COUNTY, UTAH, et al.
No. 885.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
December 4, 1933.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Utah; Tillman D. Johnson, Judge.

Suit by Ricy W. Jones and another against Box Elder County, Utah, T.L. Davis, and others, County Commissioners of Box Elder County, wherein E.H. Jones and others were interpleaded as defendants. From the decree, plaintiff and interpleaded defendants appeal.

Appeal dismissed.
Ricy H. Jones, of Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellants.

Lewis Jones, of Brigham, Utah (Wm. E. Davis, of Brigham, Utah, on the brief), for appellees.
Before PHILLIPS and BRATTON, Circuit Judges, and SYMES, District Judge.
BRATTON, Circuit Judge.
The facts in this case were stated in detail on the former appeal. 52 F.2d 340. It, therefore, is unnecessary to restate them. This court sustained the jurisdiction of the District Court of the subject-matter in controversy and likewise sustained the tax liens involved for certain years, with interest, penalties, and costs, without prejudice to a further suit for the recovery of the taxes, interest, penalties, and costs assessed for other years. Certiorari was denied.285 U.S. 555,52 S. Ct. 456,76 L. Ed. 944. The case was remanded for the entry of a proper decree conforming to the decision of this court. No retrial was contemplated. A proper mandate seasonably issued, and pursuant to its provisions the trial court entered a decree conforming thereto in every essential respect. This appeal was taken from that action.

Appellants renew and argue extendedly virtually every question presented and decided adversely to them on the former appeal, no new question arising since the former decision being involved. They will not be heard to do that; they cannot open and present the entire case anew. In the absence of the exception suggested in Pennsylvania Mining Co. v. United Mine Workers of America (C.C.A.)28 F.2d 851, the former decision is res adjudicata; it constitutes the settled law of the case and is binding upon the parties. We merely determine whether the last decree conforms to the mandate. Stewart v. Salamon,97 U.S. 361,24 L. Ed. 1044; Thompson v. Maxwell Land Grant Railway Co.,168 U.S. 451,18 S. Ct. 121,42 L. Ed. 539; United States v. New York Indians,173 U.S. 464,19 S. Ct. 487,43 L. Ed. 769; Richardson v. Ainsa,218 U.S. 289,31 S. Ct. 23,54 L. Ed. 1044; Utah Light Power Co. v. Woody (C.C.A. 10)62 F.2d 613. The last decree conforms in every material respect to the former decision of this court and the mandate issued thereon.
The appeal is dismissed.Page 901
Page 943