Richardson v. Scott
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the chancery court of Issaquena county. Hill, Chancellor. The opinion of the court sufficiently states the facts of the case, as appears from the bill of complaint. 1. The claim, the taxes for the payment of which complainants seek to enjoin, was barred by the limitation prescribed by the first section of the act of 1860, ch. 340. After that period, no tax was assessable for levee purposes except such as was afterwards provided by the act of 1867, ch. 173, sec.…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the chancery court of Issaquena county. Hill, Chancellor. The opinion of the court sufficiently states the facts of the case, as appears from the bill of complaint. 1. The claim, the taxes for the payment of which complainants seek to enjoin, was barred by the limitation prescribed by the first section of the act of 1860, ch. 340. After that period, no tax was assessable for levee purposes except such as was afterwards provided by the act of 1867, ch. 173, sec. 5, p. 241. And under that act the claim was barred by non-presentation according to its requirement. The act of 1870…
1Opinion of the Court
Tarbele, J.:
This is a proceeding in equity to enjoin the collection of taxes for levee purposes in the county of Issaquena. The tax sought to be enjoined was levied to pay a claim of Patrick G. Meath for work upon the levee of the Mississippi river within the said county. The board of supervisors of that county, in obedience to an act of the legislature of this state, approved Dec. 7, 1870, having ordered the levy and collection of a sum sufficient to pay the said claim, the injunction in this case was' sued out. The bill sets forth a variety of grounds for the writ, among which are, the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Matthews v. RodgersSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Mobile & Ohio Railroad v. MoseleyMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
- Second Nat. Bank of Titusville v. CaldwellDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1882