Citation network
Antoni Vs. Greenhow
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 05, 1883
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 769 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Antoni v. GreenhowSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 769 (1883) Antoni v. GreenhowSearch
-
inconsistent therewith. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia decided at its November Term, 1872, in Antoni v. WrightSearch
-
act of 1872, so far as it conflicted with this contract, was void. The authority of this case was recognized in Wise v. RogersSearch
-
Gratt. 169, and in Clarke v. TylerSearch
-
This Page 107 U. S. 771 decision of Antoni v. WrightSearch
-
The same questions were decided in the same way here at the October term, 1880, in Greenhow v. HartmanSearch
-
would lie according to the principles of the common law if necessary to prevent a failure of justice, and in Antoni v. WrightSearch
-
remedy to compel a collector to accept the coupons in question when offered in payment of taxes. The case of Wise v. RogersSearch
-
legislative power of the states over the obligation of contracts was suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Sturges v. CrowninshieldSearch
-
Wheat. 122, and has been uniformly acted on since. Mason v. HaileSearch
-
Von Hoffman v. QuincySearch
-
U. S. 278 . As was very properly said by Mr. Justice Swayne in Von Hoffman v. QuincySearch
-
the question becomes, therefore, one of reasonableness, and of that the legislature is primarily the judge. Jackson v. LamphireSearch
-
in a remedy which has been made, we must presume it did exist, and that the law was passed on that account. Munn v. IllinoisSearch
-
coupons, but the remedy after refusal. We might have satisfied ourselves by a reference to the case of Tennessee v. SneedSearch
-
of the present case the language of THE CHIEF JUSTICE in expressing the opinion of the Court in the cases of the State v. JumelSearch
-
or more states, her debts shall be ratably apportioned among them. See authorities upon this subject in Hartman v. GreenhowSearch
-
coupons which the state could not afterwards impair. As this Court, with only one dissenting member, said in Hartman v. GreenhowSearch
-
direct conflict with that of March 30, 1871, its validity was assailed, and came before the Court of Appeals in Antoni v. WrightSearch
-
and binding upon the state. By the decision of the state court in that case, and of this Court in Hartman v. GreenhowSearch
-
Elmendorf v. CarmichaelSearch
-
upon herself the position of an ordinary civil corporation, or of an individual, and is bound accordingly. Davis v. GraySearch
-
Hall v. WisconsinSearch
-
To the same purport and still more emphatic is the language Page 107 U. S. 796 of the Court in Walker v. WhiteheadSearch
-
should absolutely and in terms repudiate the coupon as a contract at all. It is practical repudiation. In Bronson v. KinzieSearch
-
U. S. 1 How. 311, 42 U. S. 317 . In Planters' Bank v. SharpSearch
-
U. S. 6 How. 301, 47 U. S. 327 . In Murray v. CharlestonSearch
-
U. S. 96 U.S. 432, 96 U. S. 448 . In Edwards v. KearneySearch
-
Id., 96 U. S. 608 . And only two terms ago, in Louisiana v. NewSearch
-
The question discussed by Mr. Justice Swayne in Walker v. WhiteheadSearch
-
is given as a substitute is so embarrassed with conditions as to destroy the value of the contract. In Louisiana v. PilsburySearch
-
without an adequate and efficacious remedy for their enforcement. I understand them also to reaffirm Bronson v. KinzieSearch
-
any doubt upon or in any degree to qualify the decision, either Page 107 U. S. 803 in Providence Bank v. BillingsSearch
-
or in Green v. BiddleSearch
-
or in Woodruff v. TrapnallSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial