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.

Mills Vs. Johnson

Mills vs Johnson

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1909
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/90783

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
215 U.S. 590
Subject
Other Taxes

Case Summary

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

Other Taxes

Key legal issue
Other Taxes

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mills

Respondent

Johnson

Excerpt

mills v. johnson - 215 u.s. 590 (1909) u.s. supreme court mills v. johnson, 215 u.s. 590 (1909) 215 u.s. 590 mrs. emma g. mills, and her husband, harry mills, plaintiffs in error, v. mrs. m. e. v. johnson and husband, l. a. johnson, j. h. h. burk, at al. no. 36. supreme court of the united states december 13, 1909 messrs. frederic d. mckenney and r. s. neblett for plaintiffs in error. messrs. richard mays, robert e. prince, and w. s. simpkins for defendants in error. per curiam: writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. beale v. johnson, 45 tex. civ. app. 119, 99 s. w. 1045; waters-pierce oil co. v. texas, 212 u.s. 86 , 53 l. ed. 417, 29 sup. ct. rep. 220; waters pierce oil co. v. texas, 212 u.s. 112 , 53 l. ed. 431, 29 sup. ct. rep. 227; mccorquodale v. texas, 211 u.s. 432 , 53 l. ed. 269, 29 sup. ct. rep. 146; cox v. texas, 202 u.s. 446 , 50 l. ed. 1099, 26 sup. ct. rep. 671; harding v. illinois, 196 u.s. 78 , 49 l. ed. 394, 25 sup. ct. rep. 176; arbuckle v. blackburn, 191 u.s. 405 , 48 l. ed. 239, 24 sup. ct. rep. 148.

Full Judgment

MILLS v. JOHNSON - 215 U.S. 590 (1909)
U.S. Supreme Court MILLS v. JOHNSON, 215 U.S. 590 (1909)

215 U.S. 590

MRS. EMMA G. MILLS, and her husband, Harry Mills, Plaintiffs in Error,
v.
MRS. M. E. V. JOHNSON and husband, L. A. Johnson, J. H. H. Burk, at al.
No. 36.

Supreme Court of the United States

December 13, 1909

Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney and R. S. Neblett for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Richard Mays, Robert E. Prince, and W. S. Simpkins for defendants in error.

Per Curiam:

Writ of Error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Beale v. Johnson, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 119, 99 S. W. 1045; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86 , 53 L. ed. 417, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220; Waters Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 112 , 53 L. ed. 431, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 227; McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U.S. 432 , 53 L. ed. 269, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 146; Cox v. Texas, 202 U.S. 446 , 50 L. ed. 1099, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 671; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U.S. 78 , 49 L. ed. 394, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 176; Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 191 U.S. 405 , 48 L. ed. 239, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 148.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial