Kellogg v. Maloney

Ninth Circuit

Kellogg v. Maloney

152 F. 405, 81 C.C.A. 531, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4290

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 11, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 F. 405 (Kellogg v. Maloney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kellogg v. Maloney, 152 F. 405, 81 C.C.A. 531, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4290 (9th Cir. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSS, Circuit Judge,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The point relied upon by the plaintiff in error as ground for a reversal of the judgment of the court below is that the proceedings under the statute of the state of Washington, culminating in the tax deed under which the defendants in error hold and claim, were all void. That, manifestly, depends upon a proper interpretation of the statutes of that state; and, inasmuch as the plaintiff in error appeared in the suit brought in the state court to enforce the alleged lien for taxes and moved that court to quash the summons issued therein, for the reason that the proper foundation for the issuance of summons had not been laid, and that the summons itself did not comply with the laws of the state of Washington in such cases made and provided, he thereby invoked the judgment of the state court in respect to whether the foundation of the suit, to wit, the issuance of the certificate of delinquency, was in conformity with the provisions of the state statute, and whether the [408]*408summons also conformed to its requirements. The state court held tire affirmative of both propositions in denying the motion to quash, and, furthermore, granted the plaintiff in error time within which to further plead in that cause, which time he procured to be extended by stipulation entered into with the attorney for the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff in error, therefore, had his day in court, and full opportunity not only to test the validity of the tax proceeding in the trial court of the state whose statutes are involved, but also by appeal to the Supreme Court of the state in the event of his dissatisfaction with the decision of the trial court. That the plaintiff in error cannot again litigate the same question in another court is clear. See Dowell v. Applegate, 152 U. S. 327, 14 Sup. Ct. 611, 38 L. Ed. 463; Sharon v. Hill (C. C.) 26 Fed. 357, 722; White v. Fresno National Bank, 98 Cal. 166, 32 Pac. 979; Baisley v. Baisley, 21 S. W. 29, 113 Mo. 544, 35 Am. St. Rep. 726.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

ROSS, Circuit Judge,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The point relied upon by the plaintiff in error as ground for a reversal of the judgment of the court below is that the proceedings under the statute of the state of Washington, culminating in the tax deed under which the defendants in error hold and claim, were all void. That, manifestly, depends upon a proper interpretation of the statutes of that state; and, inasmuch as the plaintiff in error appeared in the suit brought in the state court to enforce the alleged lien for taxes and moved that court to quash the summons issued therein, for the reason that the proper foundation for the issuance of summons had not been laid, and that the summons itself did not comply with the laws of the state of Washington in such cases made and provided, he thereby invoked the judgment of the state court in respect to whether the foundation of the suit, to wit, the issuance of the certificate of delinquency, was in conformity with the provisions of the state statute, and whether the [408]*408summons also conformed to its requirements. The state court held tire affirmative of both propositions in denying the motion to quash, and, furthermore, granted the plaintiff in error time within which to further plead in that cause, which time he procured to be extended by stipulation entered into with the attorney for the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff in error, therefore, had his day in court, and full opportunity not only to test the validity of the tax proceeding in the trial court of the state whose statutes are involved, but also by appeal to the Supreme Court of the state in the event of his dissatisfaction with the decision of the trial court. That the plaintiff in error cannot again litigate the same question in another court is clear. See Dowell v. Applegate, 152 U. S. 327, 14 Sup. Ct. 611, 38 L. Ed. 463; Sharon v. Hill (C. C.) 26 Fed. 357, 722; White v. Fresno National Bank, 98 Cal. 166, 32 Pac. 979; Baisley v. Baisley, 21 S. W. 29, 113 Mo. 544, 35 Am. St. Rep. 726.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 F. 405, 81 C.C.A. 531, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kellogg-v-maloney-ca9-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack