Wichita eagle., 1889-03-07
THE SUPREME COURT,

| WASHINGTON, March Gin the United
States supreme court this afternoon in thu
case of Potter L. Kimball, appellant, VS.
Charles d. Arms, Hannah Arms and tn,
Grand Central Mining company, coming
up on appeal from the circuit court of tht
| United States for the northern district o.
Ohio, eastern division, the decision Of the
lower court was reversed and the cause re.
manded with directions to confirm report
of the special master and to take
further proceedings. This was a
partnership case involving the own
ership of a majority of the
| stock of the mining property named in the
| title. In the decision (Which was delivered
| by Justice Field the court holds that the
findings of a master in chancery to whom
a case has been referred by consent OF
| parties, cannot be set aside and disre-
but that those of an independent tribunal
to be taken as presumptively correct.
In an opinion rendered by Justice Miller
in the case of the Oregon Railway &
Navigation company, plaintiff in
error, VS.. The Oregonian Rail-
way company. limited, the court
holds that the Oregonian company had no
power to lease it's railroad, and that the
navigation company had no power to take
the lease.
The supreme court also rendered a de-
cision today in the Ohio greenback case Of
Stewart B. Shotwell, plaintiff in error, VS..
Samuel A. Moore, as treasurer OF Harrison
county, O.. In error to the supreme court
of Ohio. Shotwell, on the Saturday pre-
ceeding the second Monday in April, or the
years 1881 to 1885, (the day on which re-
turns are made by the tax assessor) with
drew his deposit in the bank at CadiZ, o.,
and then, after having it conversed into
greenbacks, inclosed them in package.
and without leaving the bank re-
turned the greenbacks to the bank officer,
requesting him to deposit the same in the
bank safe The next week in each OF these
years he would have the money placed to
his credit as a general depositor. The OBJ
Ject of this proceeding was to eyade pay
ment of taxes through the provision OF the
revised statutes, that obligations of the
United States shall be exempt from state
or municipal taxation. Suit was brought
against Shotwell to recover taxes on the
ground that his conversion of his de-
posits into greenbacks was done
with intent to defraud the tax as
SCISSORS. The court quotes numerous de-
cisions to show that it has been held that
such evasons could not be allowed. but,
waving this consideration, holds that the
selection of a particular day on which TO
make tax returns does not necessarily pre-
to include other periods of the year. The
state of Ohio has provided for this by tax
ing citizens upon the capital used, accord
ing to the average monthly amount en-
ployed, and the court says this is wise
and equitable mode of determining how
much property is liable to taxation. The
judgment below is affirmed. Opinion by
Justice Miller, Justice Bradley dissenting.
a decision was also rendered by the |
court in case No. lap, q. w. Norton, |
in error. VS.. the board of commits |
sioners of the taxing district of the city of |
In error to the circuit court |
Of the United States for the Western dis |
,rict of Tennessee. By an act OF the gen
eral assembly of Tennessee of February S, |
S70; the city of Brownsville was author
zed and by vote OF a majority |
If the inhabitants subsequently is
sued bonds for the purpose of sub
cribing to stock in a projected
abroad. Before the election was held and
before the bonds were issued, however the
lew constitution of Tennessee had gone
nto effect forbidding the issue of bonds by
except after legislative au-
horzation and three-fourths vote of the
inhabitants of the place. The court holds
hat the constitutional provision ennulled
he act passed before it went into effect
nd that the issue of bonds was null and
old. The decision of the court below
vas therefore affirmed.