Case ID: us_67/html/0544-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice SWAYNE.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wright et als. vs. Sill.
    A question repeatedly argued and decided must be considered as no longer open for discussion, whatever differences of opinion may once have existed on the subject in this Court.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. '
    This case was submitted to the Court upon the record, without any argument, written or oral.
   Mr. Justice SWAYNE.

This is a suit in equity, brought here by appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio.

The questions presented are, whether the 60th section of the Act of the Legislature of Ohio, entitled “An Act to incorporate the State Bank of Ohio and other Banking Companies,” passed February 24th, 1845, constitutes a contract upon the subject of taxation, which is binding upon the State; and, if so, wheiner that contract. is impaired by the subsequent Act of the Legislature, passed April 5th, 1859, entitled “An Act for the assessment and taxation of all, the property in this State, and for levying taxes thereon according to its true value in money.”

These questions came before this Court the first time in the Piqua Branch of the State Bank of Ohio vs. Knoop, (16 How., 369), and were resolved in tbe affirmative. They have since been repeatedly before the Court, and • have, uniformly, been decided in the same way. Dodge vs. Woolsey, (18 How., 331); Mechanics' and Traders' Bank vs. Debolt, (18 How., 380); Jefferson Branch Bank vs. Skelley, (1 Black, 436); Franklin Branch Bank vs. The State of Ohio, (1 Black, 474).

Whatever differences of opinion may have existed in this Court originally in regard to these questions, or might now exist if they were open for.reconsideration, it is sufficient to say that they are concluedd by these adjudications. The argument upon both sides was exhausted in the earlier cases. It could subserve no useful purpose again to-examine the subject.

The decree of the-Court below is affirmed, with costs.