PLEASANTS
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.
A Virginia citizen sought to enjoin the city treasurer of Richmond from collecting state taxes by offering to pay with a combination of bond coupons issued under an 1871 state law and cash, but the federal circuit court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was less than $500. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the suit did not fall within the federal question jurisdiction provisions of the Revised Statutes and therefore could not be maintained in federal court despite raising constitutional claims related to state bond obligations.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice MATTHEWs delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a bill in equity filed by the, appellant, a citizen of Virginia, praying that the defendant, Greenhow, Treasurer of the City of Richmond, may be perpetually enjoined from taking steps, by distraint of the complainant’s property, to collect certain taxes claimed by the defendant to be due to the State of Virginia, amounting to $36.25, but for which the bill avers the complainant tendered in payment the exact amount thereof, for a part, coupons cut from bonds issued by the State under the act of March 30, 1871, and part in money.
On demurrer to the bill, it was dismissed by the Circuit Court for want of jurisdiction, the amount in controversy, being less than' $500, and the complainant has brought this appeal.
• It is sought to maintain the jurisdiction in this case on the ground that the suit is authorized by Rev. Stat. § 1979, jurisdiction to entertain which is conferred by the sixteenth clause of Rev. Stat. § 629.
The case comes within the decision just' rendered. in Carter v. Greenhow, and is governed by it. It is not, in our opinion, such a suit as is contemplated by the. sections of the Revised Statutes referred to.
As the sum or value in controversy does, not exceed $500, the suit cannot be maintained as-a cáse arising under the Constitution and laws of the.TTnited States, provided.for in the act of March 3, 1875, ch. 137s 18 Stat. 470. The bill was, therefore, rightly, dismissed.
The decree of the. Circuit Cowrt is accordingly affirmed.
MR. Justice Bradley, with whom were the Chief Justice, ,. Mr. Justice Miller, and Mr. Justice Gray, concurred in the judgment, but rested their concurrence upon the grounds- • stated in their opinion, post, page 330, after the opinion of the court in Marye v. ParsoNS.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lynch v. Household Fin. Corp., 405 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1972)…es cite three cases decided by this Court before Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, that, they say, support the limitation of § 1343 (3) jurisdiction to claims of deprivation of personal liberties. Carter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 317; Pleasants v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 323; Holt v. Indiana Mfg. Co., 176 U. S. 68. The appellees also rely on two recent affirmances, without opinion, of decisions by three-judge district courts dismissing § 1343 (3) suits on the ground that the rights allegedly infringed were proprietary.…
-
Eisen v. Eastman, 421 F.2d 560 (2d Cir. 1969)…1331, with its requirement of a jurisdictional amount, in all cases where natural persons complained of acts by state officers as violating the Constitution. Essaying the task of definition, which the Court had side-stepped in Pleasants v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 323, 330, 5 S.Ct. 931, 29 L.Ed. 204 (1885), and Holt v. Indiana Mfg. Co., supra, he thought the special jurisdictional statute applied “whenever the right or immunity is one of personal liberty, not dependent for its existence upon the infringement of p…1 / 5
-
Holt v. Ind. Mfg. Co., 176 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1900)…f the state courts whenever they sustain the validity of a state statute or of an authority exercised under a State, alleged to be repugnant to the Constitution or laws of 'the United States. Carter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 317; Pleasants v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 323. (3.) Treating this bill as setting up a case arising under the Constitution or laws of . the Unitéd States-on the ground that the laws of Indiana authorized the taxation in question, and were therefore void because patent rights granted by the .Un…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence