Hubbard v. Kelley
West Virginia Supreme Court
At a court held in and for Ohio county, at which the Hon. John Blair Hoge, judge of the third judicial district, presided, on the 3rd day of June, 1873, a judgment was rendered in favor of "William P. Hubbard, the plaintiff, against Benjamin F. Kelley, the defendant, for the sum of §266.80, with interest thereon, and the costs. The action was in form indebitatus assumpsit.
Read the full summary
At a court held in and for Ohio county, at which the Hon. John Blair Hoge, judge of the third judicial district, presided, on the 3rd day of June, 1873, a judgment was rendered in favor of "William P. Hubbard, the plaintiff, against Benjamin F. Kelley, the defendant, for the sum of §266.80, with interest thereon, and the costs. The action was in form indebitatus assumpsit. The defendant applied to a judge oi this Court for a supersedeas to the said judgment, which was allowed. The other facts appear in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Moore, Judge:
As admitted by the appellee, in argument, although this action is in form, as against Kelley, indebitatus as* sumpsit, it is virtually against the United States, under the ninth and nineteenth sections of the amendatory internal revenue act of July 13, 1866, chapter one hundred and eighty-four, Stat. at Large, vol. 14, pages 111, 152. Section nineteen declares: “That no suit shall be maintained in any court for any tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, until appeal shall have been duly made to the commissioner of internal revenue according to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Iguano Land & Mining Co. v. JonesWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1909
- Chicago Art Co. v. ThackerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1909
- Florida Packing & Ice Co. v. CarneySupreme Court of Florida · 1906
- State v. MooneyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1901
- State v. WrightWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1915