Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Withnell v. William R. Bush Construction Co.
216 U.S. 603
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1910-02-28
- Topic
- general
Per Curiam. Decree affirmed with costs by a divided court.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Withnell v. William R. Bush Construction Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 1 opinion
WITHNELLv. BUSH CONSTRUCTION CO.,216 U.S. 603(1910)
WITHNELLv. WILLIAM R. BUSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF MISSOURI.
No. 108.
Argued January 26, 1910.
Decided February 28, 1910.
THE brief of the appellee contains the following statement:
This is a bill in equity. The parties to the suit, plaintiff
and defendants, are all residents of Missouri and of the same
judicial district in that State. The subject-matter of the suit
is the contention on the part of the plaintiff that the two
special tax bills described in the complaint, issued against his
property, by the public authorities of St. Louis, under the
charter of that city, as a local assessment for the construction
of a street, are void. The tax bills are claimed to be void for
one of two reasons, stated in the alternative, namely, first,
because the assessment district, as formed, and which includes
the plaintiff's property, is not in conformity to the charter
Page 604
requirements, and, second, if it shall be found that the district
is correctly defined, then that the charter provision, under
which it was formed is void, because in contravention of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The defendants below demurred to the bill upon the grounds:
1. That the plaintiff has a complete adequate remedy at law.
2. That the allegations of the bill affirmatively show that
the assessment district therein referred to was established in
accordance with the provisions of the charter of St. Louis.
3. That the matter stated in the bill is not a subject of
Federal cognizance.
The demurrer was sustained and the complainant declining to
plead further, a decree dismissing the bill was entered, from
which decree the complainant appealed.