Findlay v. McAllister
1885 United States Supreme Court case
Findlay v. McAllister, 113 U.S. 104 (1885), was a suit brought against Thomas McAllister and 14 other defendants, to recover damages as follows:
Background
Findlay, the plaintiff, owned bonds with coupons issued by Scotland County, Missouri, which were recovered on September 25, 1877 in the same circuit court where action was brought, with a judgment on the coupons against the county in the amount of $4,008.86. The county failed to pay the judgment, so the circuit court issued a peremptory writ of mandamus, which commanded the county court to levy and cause to be collected a special tax on all taxable property within the county in order to pay the judgment, including interest as well as other costs. This was also ordered for several other plaintiffs in like circumstances.
The county court levied a special tax, called a 'judgment tax,' with an amount sufficient to pay off all the judgments, and placed it on the books of the county to be delivered to the county tax collector for collection of the tax.
After the special tax had been levied, and the tax-book placed in the hands of the collector for collection, the defendants, with about 2,000 other evil-disposed persons, all residents of Scotland county, conspired to hinder and prevent the county court and the collector from collecting and paying the special tax. They did this in order to try and depreciate the value of the bonds held by the plaintiff in an attempt to compromise the judgment and bonds at much less than their value. This was done unlawfully and maliciously, and in contempt of the orders and mandates of the circuit court.
The defendants and their confederates organized into an association called 'The Tax-payers Association of Scotland County,' with branch organizations in various school-districts of the county, for the purpose, among other things, of resisting the collection of the special tax, and the defendants and their confederates did pledge themselves to contribute of their means and influence, and to protect each other in all efforts made, to resist the payment thereof. In furtherance of their design, the defendants and their confederates, members of said association, made and published threats of violence against the attorneys of the plaintiff, who were employed to represent him in the collection of his judgment, and gave out and circulated the threat that no person would be allowed to bid upon or purchase any property that might be offered for sale by the collector to enforce the payment of the special tax, intending thereby to intimidate any person from bidding upon or purchasing any property offered for sale by the collector for the payment thereof.
The public source identifies “Findlay v. McAllister” as 1885 United States Supreme Court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Findlay, McAllister and United.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Findlay v. McAllister”, the useful work is to connect “1885 United States Supreme Court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 13, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5450003. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1885 and 1877.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Findlay v. McAllister”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Findlay v. McAllister primary sources, Findlay v. McAllister archive and Findlay research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Findlay v. McAllister”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Findlay v. McAllister” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.