From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baltzer and Taaks v. North Carolina

U.S.
Mar 2, 1896
161 U.S. 246 (1896)

Opinion

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.

No. 52.

Argued February 3, 4, 1896. Decided March 2, 1896.

Baltzer v. North Carolina, ante 240, followed.

Mr. Simon Sterne for plaintiff in error.

Mr. James E. Shepherd and Mr. Charles M. Busbee, (with whom was Mr. F.I. Osborne on the brief,) for defendant in error.


THE case is stated in the opinion.


The claim presented in this case to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina differs somewhat from that relied on in that court in the case of Hermann R. Baltzer v. The State of North Carolina, No. 93 of the docket of this court. The question of the power in the state court to give the relief prayed for was by it decided adversely to the plaintiffs in error upon grounds identical with those considered by us in the case just decided. Our reasons for affirmance there expressed are conclusive of the issues here, and consequently the judgment is

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Baltzer and Taaks v. North Carolina

U.S.
Mar 2, 1896
161 U.S. 246 (1896)
Case details for

Baltzer and Taaks v. North Carolina

Case Details

Full title:BALTZER AND TAAKS v . NORTH CAROLINA

Court:U.S.

Date published: Mar 2, 1896

Citations

161 U.S. 246 (1896)

Citing Cases

Lynch v. United States

The consent may be withdrawn, although given after much deliberation and for a pecuniary consideration.…

Donohue v. United States

The consent may be withdrawn, although given after much deliberation and for a pecuniary consideration. De…