Samuel Freeman Miller

Name: Riggs v. Johnson County — Dissent
Author: Samuel Freeman Miller

Summary

“Riggs v. Johnson County — Dissent”, is a work by Samuel Freeman Miller. It explores elements such as mandamus, writ and court.

Quotes from Riggs v. Johnson County — Dissent (Samuel Freeman Miller)

Samuel Freeman Miller, Riggs v. Johnson County — Dissent

“ Passing from these conclusive evidences of what this very court considers to be the nature of the writ of mandamus, and what the statutes of Iowa (appealed to in the opinion of the majority as the basis of their judgment) intend it to be, if we look to the essential nature of the present proceeding we shall still be more convinced that it is a new suit in every sense of the word. We have already shown that the parties are different. The purpose of it is to enforce the levy of a tax; an object which could never be obtained, and which is not within the scope of an action of assumpsit. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Riggs v. Johnson County — Dissent

“ The obligation of the supervisors to levy this tax, if it exist at all, is as perfect in regard to bonds on which there is no judgment, as it is where judgment has been rendered; and this duty can as well be enforced by mandamus in the one case as in the other. It is this duty which is sought to be enforced in the present case. If a mandamus is liable to issue without the judgment, how can it be said to be an incident to the judgment, and a part of that suit? ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Riggs v. Johnson County — Dissent

“ In almost all the cases where municipal corporations have any authority at all to issue such bonds, the statutes which give the authority require that there shall first be a vote of the majority of the people of the municipality, approving the purpose for which they are issued, and authorizing their issue. Of course the law fixes the manner of taking this vote; and I believe that, until this court decided to the contrary, no court had ever held that such bonds were valid without a substantial compliance with the statutes on that subject. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Riggs v. Johnson County — Dissent

“ The judgment of the Federal court is not mentioned or alluded to in the proceedings in the State court. Neither plaintiff nor defendant in the Federal court are made parties to the suit in the State court. Nor is any decree rendered touching its process or designed to interfere with it. All the ordinary writs, and all the ordinary powers of a court in a judgment at law, may be exhausted by the Federal court without the possibility of any collision between that court and the decree of the State court. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Riggs v. Johnson County — Dissent

“ When the highest court in the land renders a judgment or a decree, any other court before which the matter may come has a right to inquire into its authority to pass such judgment; but these mere agents of the people, whose powers are limited by law, may, by merely asserting their authority, pass a decree which no court can examine, because none can dispute their jurisdiction.
After this de ision, no matter how illegal, fraudulent, or unauthorized were corporation bonds, no defence could be made to them in the Federal courts, and, of course, they were all sued upon in those courts. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Riggs v. Johnson County — Dissent

“ In order to prevent such confiicts as threaten to grow out of the matter before us, in cases of concurrent jurisdiction it has been established as a rule that the court which first obtains jurisdiction of the case shall have the exclusive right to decide the matter in issue, and that any other court which may have subsequently assumed to act in the matter must, when the fact of this priority of jurisdiction is brought to its attention, proceed no further. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Riggs v. Johnson County — Dissent

“ The concluding words of the section are useless but for the purpose of so limiting it, and if these words are useless, they are the first which, in eighty years, have been found to be so in this admirable statute. ”

Samuel Freeman Miller

Summary

Quotes from Riggs v. Johnson County — Dissent (Samuel Freeman Miller)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature