WHITE
v.
GREENHOW, TREASURER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Virginia enacted a law forbidding its tax collector to accept state bond coupons in payment of taxes, despite an earlier state law making those coupons receivable for taxes, and the collector seized the plaintiff's property when he tendered the coupons. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and held that Virginia's newer law impairing the obligation of its contract to accept the coupons violated the Contract Clause of the Constitution, establishing that a state cannot retroactively repudiate its contractual obligations through subsequent legislation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Matthews delivered the opinion of the court. -
The plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, brought his action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia against the defendant, both being citizens' of that State. The declaration, in substance, sets out that the plaintiff, owning property in the City of Richmond, was assessed thereon for., the year 1882 for certain taxes to be paid to the State of Virginia, leviable, for after December 1, 1882; that the defendant was treasurer of the City of Richmond, and, as such, collector of taxes due to the State'assessed on property in that city; that plaintiff tendered to the defendant, on demand being made for payment of said taxes, the amount thereof in coupons cut from bonds issued by the State of Virginia under the act of March 30, 1871, entitled “ An-Act to' provide for the funding and payment of the public debt,” which coupons, by the terms of said act, were receivable in payment of'taxes by virtue of a contract with the State of Virginia; that the defendant refused to receive said coupons, under color of the authority of the act of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, passed January 26,1882, which forbade him to receive the saíne; that the defendant, after refusal of said tender, forcibly and unlawfully entered the premises of the plaintiff, and levied upon and seized and carried away personal property of the plaintiff of the value of $3,000, in order to sell the same for the satisfaction of said taxes, which he claimed to be unpaid and delinquent; that the acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, specified in the pleadings, which require the tax collector to refuse to receive such coupons in payment of taxes, and to proceed with the collection of taxes, for the payment of which they have been tendered, as if they were delinquent, impair the obligation of the said contract between the State of Virginia and the plaintiffand that by reason of the said wrongs the plaintiff has suffered damage in the sum of $6,000, for which he brings suit.
To this declaration the defendant demurred generally, the demurrer was sustained, and judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff sued out this writ of error. All the questions raised and argued upon the merits of this case have been fully considered in the opinion of the court in the case of Poindexter v. Greenhow, ante, 270.
The present action, as shown on the face of the declaration, was a case arising under the Constitution of the United States, and was one, therefore, of which the Circuit Court of the tJnited States had rightful jurisdiction by virtue of the act of March 3,1875, without regard to the citizenship of the parties, the sum or value in controversy being in excess of $500.
In conformity with the views expressed in the opinion in Poindexter v. Greenhow,
.The judgment in the present case is reversed and thie cause is rema/nded, with directions to proceed therein in conformity with, la/w.
Mr. Justice Beadley, with whom concurred The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Millee and Mr. Justice Geay, dissented. Their dissenting opinion will be found, post, page 330, after the opinion in Maeye v. PabsoNs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Larson v. Dom. & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (U.S. 1949)…A. Cases in which an official justified his action under an unconstitutional statute. Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738 (1824); Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U. S. 531; Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270; White v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 307; Chaffin v. Taylor, 114 U. S. 309; Allen v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 114 U. S. 311; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1; In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 164; Reagan v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362; Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58; Scott v. Donald, 1…1 / 2
-
Smith v. Kan. City Title & Tr. Co., 255 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1921)…. ” Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 822. These definitions were quoted and approved in Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608, 611, citing Gold-Washing Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199, 201; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257; White v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 307; Railroad Company v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 135, 139. [*200] This characterization of a suit arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States has -been followed in many decisions of this and other federal courts. See Macon Grocery Co. v.…
-
Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1894)…contract clause of the • Constitution of the United States. Such a suit would have been one arising under the Constitution, and, therefore, cognizable by [*472] the Circuit Court. Allen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 114 U. S. 311; White v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 307; Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550. Net, under the decision just rendered, the bank cannot, by removing the present suit,.invoke the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for the determination of the same question. Further, it was held in Texas & Pacific…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence