Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

178 U.S. 610

44 L. Ed. 1212

Docket No. 604.

Taylor v. Beckham

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued April 30, May 1, 1900.

Decided May 21, 1900.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1900-05-21

The facts affecting this case are stated in Taylor and Marshall v. Beckham {Mo 1), ante, 548. It was argued with that case, and by the same counsel.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 6–3 · Decided 1900-05-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 1983

20 federal appellate · 2 district ·

70190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY.

¶2It results from the conclusions announced in No. 603, ante, 548, that the writ of error in this case must be dismissed.

¶3The facts affecting this case are stated in Taylor and Marshall v. Beckham {Mo 1), ante, 548. It was argued with that case, and by the same counsel.

¶4Mr. Chief Justice Fuller :

¶5These were suits in equity brought by Taylor and Marshall against Beckham, and one Carter, asserting himself to be the president pro tempore of the Senate of Kentucky, with the right to preside over that body though Marshall was present, in which complainants prayed for injunctions restraining defendants from interfering with complainants in their offices. These suits were heard with the case of Beckham v. Taylor and Marshall, just decided. When the Circuit Court of Jefferson County reached the conclusion that Beckham was entitled to the office of Governor and entered judgment of ouster, it dismissed the suits. From the decrees appeals were taken to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, where they were affirmed, and thereafter a writ of error from this court was allowed.

¶6It results from the conclusions announced in the preceding case that the writ of error must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

¶7Mr.-Justice McKenna concurred in the result.

¶8Mr. Justice Brewer and Mr. Justice Brown concurred in a dissent for reasons stated in their dissent to Taylor <& Marshall v. Beckham {Mo. 1), ante, 548.

¶9Mr. Justice Harlan dissented for reasons .stated in his dissent to Taylor da Marshall v. Beckham {Mo. 1), ante, 548.

/178/us/610 · .json · Public domain