| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Sheboygan Co. v. Parker was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1865 that involved an appeal from the Circuit Court of Wisconsin regarding a dispute over land ownership between Sheboygan County and William H. Parker, who had purchased property located within the county's boundaries from one of its citizens, John Bostwick Jr., without obtaining permission or paying taxes to Sheboygan County for it. The court ruled in favor of Sheboygan County, finding that although Mr. Bostwick had valid title to his property at the time he sold it to Mr. Parker, this did not exempt him from having to pay taxes on it or obtain permission before selling it; thus, any rights acquired by Mr. Parker through his purchase were invalidated due to his failure to comply with these requirements as set forth by state law and upheld by federal precedent established prior cases such as Pollard’s Lessee v Goodloe (1845). As such, all claims made against Sheboygan County related thereto were dismissed and their right over said lands reaffirmed
In Sheboygan Co. v. Parker, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Wisconsin statute that allowed for the taxation of non-residents on their real estate within the state violated Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this clause and thus upheld the tax law in question. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that such a law would be unconstitutional because it infringed upon an individual's right to travel freely between states without being subject to additional taxes or burdensome regulations imposed by one state but not another. He further contended that if each state were able to impose its own laws regarding taxation on non-residents then individuals would be unable to move freely throughout different states without fear of having their property taxed at higher rates than what they are accustomed too or even worse having their property confiscated altogether due solely based on where they choose reside temporarily or permanently.