Audit Co. of New York v. City of Louisville
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Kentucky. Suit in equity by the Audit Company of New York against the City of Louisville and others. Decree for defendants, and complainant appeals.
1Opinion of the Court
DENISON, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The subject of the jurisdiction of a court of equity should not pass without notice. It might seem that, in an action at law upon the contract, the true date could be shown, and so the legal remedy would be adequate. District of Columbia v. Camden, 181 U. S. 453, 461, 21 Sup. Ct. 680, 45 L. Ed. 948. It was complainant’s theory that the date was not, as often, immaterial, but was an important and perhaps controlling fact, because August 31st and September 3d were in different fiscal years, and obligations incurred during one year must…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- South Carolina v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Pikes Peak Power Co. v. City of Colorado SpringsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1900
- District of Columbia v. Camden Iron WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Beard v. City of HopkinsvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1894
- City of Henderson v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Laird Norton Yards v. City of RochesterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- Corbett v. Winston Elkhorn Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1924
- Royal Union Mut. Life Ins. v. LloydCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1918
- State Ex Rel. Woods v. ColeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
- Lynn Redevelopment Authority v. City of LynnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.