John L. Whiting—J. J. Adams Co. v. Burrill

Supreme Court

John L. Whiting—J. J. Adams Co. v. Burrill

258 U.S. 39, 42 S. Ct. 257, 66 L. Ed. 453, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2236

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided February 27, 1922·No. 113·Published

Opinion

*40 Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit like the two just decided, ante, 34, .to recover .taxes paid under the Act of 1909 there mentioned and St. 1918, c. 253. In this case as in the other the statutes provided a remedy that excluded an action against the Treasurer at common law. St. 1909, c. 490, Pt. 111, § 70. St. 1918, c. 253, § 4. St. 1918, c. 255, § 7. . The District Court gave judgment for the defendant on the merits. Without going into them it follows that the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed,

Mr. Justice Pitney, being absent, took no part in the decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*40 Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit like the two just decided, ante, 34, .to recover .taxes paid under the Act of 1909 there mentioned and St. 1918, c. 253. In this case as in the other the statutes provided a remedy that excluded an action against the Treasurer at common law. St. 1909, c. 490, Pt. 111, § 70. St. 1918, c. 253, § 4. St. 1918, c. 255, § 7. . The District Court gave judgment for the defendant on the merits. Without going into them it follows that the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed,

Mr. Justice Pitney, being absent, took no part in the decision.

John L. Whiting—J. J. Adams Co. v. Burrill, 258 U.S. 39, 42 S. Ct. 257, 66 L. Ed. 453, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2236 (1922).

Pincite

258 U.S. 39 (John L. Whiting—J. J. Adams Co. v. Burrill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.