Clark v. Keith
Cases that cite this one
50 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Johnson v. Cadillac Motor Car Co. (2d Cir. 1919)
- Messinger v. Anderson (6th Cir. 1909)
- Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Wilder (5th Cir. 1900)
- Mayflower Hotel Stockholders Protective Committee v. Mayflower Hotel Corp. (D.C. Cir. 1951)
- Walton v. Commercial Credit Co. (S.D. 1943)
- Thornton v. Carter (8th Cir. 1940)
- Illinois Cent. R. v. Crail (8th Cir. 1929)
- Minneapolis Steel & Machinery Co. v. Federal Surety Co. (8th Cir. 1929)
- City of Seattle v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co. (9th Cir. 1926)
- Dickinson v. O. & W. THUM CO. (6th Cir. 1925)
- Gohman v. City of St. Bernard (Ohio 1924)
- Bodkin v. Edwards (9th Cir. 1920)
- Linkous v. Virginian Ry. Co. (4th Cir. 1917)
- Woodruff v. Yazoo & M. V. R. (5th Cir. 1915)
- D'Arcy v. Jackson Cushion Spring Co. (6th Cir. 1914)
- Blount v. Downs (5th Cir. 1912)
- Stone, Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States (5th Cir. 1912)
- Pons v. Yazoo & M. V. R. (La. 1911)
- Roth v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. (8th Cir. 1908)
- Guarantee Co. of North America v. Phenix Ins. (8th Cir. 1903)
- United States v. Semon Bache & Co. (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1939)
- Oliver v. State (Tenn. 1932)
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Larabee Flour Mills Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1916)
- Denver & R. G. R. v. Mills (8th Cir. 1915)
- New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co. v. Dexter (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1912)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
When this case was here on a former writ of error it was *465 decided that Keith, the collector, was bound in law to receive the genuine notes of the Bank of Tennessee, issued after May 6, 1861, in payment of taxes due the State of Tennessee, unless he showed in defence that the notes tendered were issued for the purpose of aiding the rebellion. The affirmative of this issue was put on the collector. Keith v. Clark, 97 U. S. 454. That question is no longer open ■ in this case, for the reason that it has long been settled that whatever has been decided here on one writ of error cannot be re-examined on a subsequent writ brought in the same suit. This rule was distinctly stated in Supervisors v. Kennicott, 94. id. 498, where numerous authorities are cited, beginning as early as Himely v. Rose, 5 Cranch, 313.
On the trial of an issue framed to meet the case as it was sent back from here for further proceedings, the court- instructed the jury as follows: —
“ If a part of the Torbett issue (that after May 6,' 1861) wks made and signed by the proper officers of the bank to aid' the rebellion, and the other-part of said is'sue was- made, signed, and issued for the purpose of doing a legitimate banking business, and you cannot say from the evidence, in the' case that the notes here sued on were issued in aid of the rebellion; or were signed and issued for legitimate banking business, then', you should find for the plaintiff. In other words, the law presumes that the notes here sued upon were' issued for a lawful purpose, and.the burden of proof-is upon the deféndant to show otherwise before this defence can be sustained.”
The ruling of the Supreme Court of Tennessee sustaining this instruction is the only error assigned on the record brought up with the present writ. As the instruction was in * exact conformity with our former decision; we cannot re-examine it in the present case.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.