Commissioners of Wicomico County v. Bancroft
Supreme Court of the United States
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT- OP APPEALS POE THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. The facts are stated in the opinion. The question has become res adjudicada by the courts of Maryland and by this court. The contract must have been impaired by some act of the legislative power of the State and not by the courts.
Read the full summary
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT- OP APPEALS POE THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. The facts are stated in the opinion. The question has become res adjudicada by the courts of Maryland and by this court. The contract must have been impaired by some act of the legislative power of the State and not by the courts. Lehigh Wdter Co. v. Easton, 121 U. S. 388; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103. The doctrine of stare decisis and res adjudicate, rests on a broader ground than technical estoppel. It has been called “ a rule of rest,” and is founded on public policy. The decisions in the Maryland and Federal…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Day
delivered .the opinion of the court.
The respondent, Samuel Bancroft, Jr., began an action in the Circuit Court of the United States for. the District of Maryland to enjoin the county commissioners of Wicomico County from levying taxes on the property of the Baltimore, Chesapeake and Atlantic Railway Company, alleging that he. was'the holder of twenty bonds secured by mortgage upon the company’s property, which, under the laws of the State, had been exempted from taxation. Such proceedings were had that a decree was entered enjoining taxation of certain propérty of the railway company. Upon…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Burgess v. SeligmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Wisconsin & Michigan Railway Co. v. PowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Baltimore, Chesapeake & Atlantic Ry. Co. v. County CommissionersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1901
- Gulf & Ship Island Railroad v. HewesSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1910
- Pioneer Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Molinari v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Interstate Commerce CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.