DALLAS COUNTY v. HUIDEKOPER, 154 U.S. 655 (1880)
U.S. Supreme Court
DALLAS COUNTY v. HUIDEKOPER, 154 U.S. 655 (1880)154 U.S. 655
DALLAS COUNTY, MISSOURI,
v.
ALFRED HUIDEKOPER.
SAME
v.
WILLIAM H. DAVOL.
Nos. 224 and 226.
April 5, 1880
S. H. Boyd, A. D. Matthews, and B. L. Brush, for appellant.
Joseph Shippen, for appellees.
Mr. Chief Justice WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.
These are suits in equity to enjoin the collection of judgments
against Dallas county on coupons for interest attached to the same
class of bonds just considered in Dallas Co. v. Huidekoper (No.
225) 154 U.S. 654, 14 Sup. Ct. 1190, and relief is asked on the
ground that the charter of the railroad company had expired before
any organization was effected under it, and that this fact was not
known to the county until after the judgment was rendered. After
what has been said in the other case, it is clear that the bills
were properly dismissed without considering the power of a court of
equity to sustain such a suit, and the decree in each of the cases
is consequently affirmed.
U.S. Supreme Court
DALLAS COUNTY v. HUIDEKOPER, 154 U.S. 655 (1880) 154 U.S. 655 DALLAS COUNTY, MISSOURI,v.
ALFRED HUIDEKOPER. SAME
v.
WILLIAM H. DAVOL. Nos. 224 and 226. April 5, 1880 S. H. Boyd, A. D. Matthews, and B. L. Brush, for appellant. Joseph Shippen, for appellees. Mr. Chief Justice WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. These are suits in equity to enjoin the collection of judgments against Dallas county on coupons for interest attached to the same class of bonds just considered in Dallas Co. v. Huidekoper (No. 225) 154 U.S. 654, 14 Sup. Ct. 1190, and relief is asked on the ground that the charter of the railroad company had expired before any organization was effected under it, and that this fact was not known to the county until after the judgment was rendered. After what has been said in the other case, it is clear that the bills were properly dismissed without considering the power of a court of equity to sustain such a suit, and the decree in each of the cases is consequently affirmed.
