Woods v. Freeman

68 U.S. 398, 17 L. Ed. 543, 1 Wall. 398, 1863 U.S. LEXIS 476
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 11, 1864·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

68 U.S. 398 (1863)
1 Wall. 398

WOODS
v.
FREEMAN.

Supreme Court of United States.

*399 Mr. Merriman, for the defendant in error.

Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court, and after stating facts, proceeded thus:

There was no "mark, word, or character" on the record of the judgment to indicate the amount of taxes for which it was rendered against the land, which was undoubtedly the reason why the court rejected the evidence.

In the construction of local statutes affecting the titles to real estate, this court recognizes the binding force of the interpretation given by the highest judicial tribunal of a State.

*400 This question has been expressly decided by the Supreme Court of Illinois. That court has held,[*] "that a judgment for taxes is fatally defective which fails to show the amount of tax for which it was rendered, and that the use of numerals, without some mark indicating for what they stand, is insufficient." The judgment was therefore void, and the court was right in excluding the evidence from the jury.

Judgment is

AFFIRMED WITH COSTS.

NOTES

[*] Lawrence v. Fast, 20 Illinois, 340; Lane v. Bommelmann, 21 Id., 147.

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

Woods v. Freeman, 68 U.S. 398, 17 L. Ed. 543, 1 Wall. 398, 1863 U.S. LEXIS 476 (1864).

68 U.S. 398 (Woods v. Freeman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hunter Glover Co. v. Harvey Steel Products Corp.
3 F.2d 634 (W.D. Tennessee, 1924)
Ballard v. Hunter
204 U.S. 241 (Supreme Court, 1907)
Moran v. Thomas
104 N.W. 212 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1905)
Brown v. Reeves & Co.
68 N.E. 604 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1903)
Turner v. Hand County
77 N.W. 589 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1898)
Midland Railway Co. v. State ex rel. Harrison
2 Ind. App. 433 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1894)
Ward v. Board of Commissioners
29 P. 658 (Montana Supreme Court, 1892)
In re the State
23 N.W. 189 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1885)
In re Rector of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre
61 How. Pr. 315 (New York Supreme Court, 1880)
Crismon v. Reich
2 Utah 111 (Utah Supreme Court, 1880)
Owen v. Brien
2 Tenn. Ch. R. 295 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1875)
Coombs ex rel. Waters v. O'Neal
8 D.C. 405 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1874)
Cahoon v. Coe
52 N.H. 518 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1872)