Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Litchfield Vs. Hamilton County

Litchfield vs Hamilton County

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1879
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/83848

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
101 U.S. 781
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Litchfield

Respondent

Hamilton County

Excerpt

litchfield v. hamilton county - 101 u.s. 781 (1879) u.s. supreme court litchfield v. hamilton county, 101 u.s. 781 (1879) 101 u.s. 781 101 u.s. 781 litchfield v. hamilton county. october term, 1879 -in litchfield v. county of hamilton, error to the supreme court of the state of iowa, which was submitted on printed arguments by mr. george g. wright for the plaintiff in error, and by mr. daniel d. chase for the defendants in error. mr. chief justice waite, in delivering the opinion of the court, remarked, that the only federal question presented was whether the lands in hamilton county, which litchfield held by the same title he did those in webster county, involved in the preceding case, were taxable for the years 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, and 1865. for the reasons stated in the other case, the court held that the taxes for 1859, 1860, and 1861 were illegal, and their collection should be enjoined, but that those for 1862 and the following years were properly collectible. the court below decided that they were legally assessed for all the years, and decreed that they be paid in full, with all interest, penalties, and costs. the liability of litchfield for interest and penalties after 1861 did not present any federal question. the decree of the state court was reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enjoin the collection of all taxes and charges on the lands in question for the years 1859, 1860, and 1861, but with leave to enter such further decree in reference to the taxes of 1862 and thereafter as the court should be advised might be proper under the circumstances.[ litchfield v. hamilton county 101 u.s. 781 (1879)

Full Judgment

LITCHFIELD v. HAMILTON COUNTY - 101 U.S. 781 (1879)
U.S. Supreme Court LITCHFIELD v. HAMILTON COUNTY, 101 U.S. 781 (1879)

101 U.S. 781 101 U.S. 781

LITCHFIELD
v.
HAMILTON COUNTY.

October Term, 1879

-In Litchfield v. County of Hamilton, error to the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa, which was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. George G. Wright for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Daniel D. Chase for the defendants in error.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE, in delivering the opinion of the court, remarked, that the only Federal question presented was whether the lands in Hamilton County, which Litchfield held by the same title he did those in Webster County, involved in the preceding case, were taxable for the years 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, and 1865. For the reasons stated in the other case, the court held that the taxes for 1859, 1860, and 1861 were illegal, and their collection should be enjoined, but that those for 1862 and the following years were properly collectible. The court below decided that they were legally assessed for all the years, and decreed that they be paid in full, with all interest, penalties, and costs. The liability of Litchfield for interest and penalties after 1861 did not present any Federal question.

The decree of the State court was reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enjoin the collection of all taxes and charges on the lands in question for the years 1859, 1860, and 1861, but with leave to enter such further decree in reference to the taxes of 1862 and thereafter as the court should be advised might be proper under the circumstances.[ Litchfield v. Hamilton County 101 U.S. 781 (1879)

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial