MOORE
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.
Moore sought mandamus to compel Virginia's treasurer to accept state bond coupons in payment of a license tax deposit, but Virginia law required payment in gold or silver coin or certain currency notes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal, holding that the case fell within the precedent established in Antoni v. Greenhow, which required plaintiffs to pursue the statutory remedy provided by an 1882 federal act rather than seek mandamus relief.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
MR. Justice Matthews delivered the opinion of the court. .
The plaintiff in error filed his petition, on April 26,1884, in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, against Greenhow, the defendant, as treasurer of the City of Richmond, praying for a rule nisi, commanding the said Greenhow to show cause why a peremptory mandamus should not be awarded to the plaintiff, commanding the said treasurer to issue to the petitioner & certificate in writing stating that he had made the .deposit required by law in payment of his license tax, as a sample merchant in said city. The petition set forth that the tender made in payment of this deposit consisted of coupons cut from bonds issued by the State of Virginia, and, by contract with the State therein declared receivable in payment of all taxes, debts, demands and dues to the State, and that the tender was refused by the treasurer, and a certificate of deposit withheld, because the 112th section of an act of the General Assembly of •Virginia, approved March 15,1884, for the purpose of assessing’ taxes on persons, property, and incomes and licenses, requires that all license taxes shall be paid in gold or silver coin, United States treasury notes, or national bank notes, and not in coupons, and another act of the General Assembly of the State, approved March 7, 1884, to regulate the granting of licenses, likewise forbids the payment of license taxes in coupons.
The alternative Writ prayed for was denied by the. Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, and, on a petition for a writ of error, its judgment dismissing1 the petition therefor was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State.
This being a case in which, by mandamus, the plaintiff in error seeks to compel the officers of the State of Virginia specifically to receive coupons instead of money in payment cf license taxes, it comes within the exact terms of the decision of a majority of this court in Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769, according to which the plaintiff in error is remitted to the remedy provided by the act of January 14, 1882, entitled “ An Act to prevent frauds upon the Commonwealth and the holders of her-securities in the collection and disbursement of revenues.”
-• The judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Yirginia is, therefore,
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Field and Me. Justioe Hablan adhere to the views expressed in their dissenting opinions in Antoni v. Green-how, but they agree, that the principles announced by the majority in that-case, if. applied to the present case, require an affirmance of the judgment below.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tejada v. In re Forfeiture OF THE Following Described Prop.: $406, 820 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attached a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past, must be deemed retrospective. Maj. op at 889, citing Sturges v. Carter, 114 U.S. 511, 519, 5 S.Ct. 1014, 29 L.Ed. 240 (1885) quoting Society for the Propagation of the Gospel v. Wheeler, 22 F. Caves. 756, 767 (C.C.D.N.H.1814). However, .what the majority fails to grasp is that the transaction at issue here is not Tejada’s refusal to answer the criminal charges agai…1 / 2
-
McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1898)…a few of which finally came to this court. Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U. S. 672; Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769; Virginia Coupon cases, 114 U. S. 269; Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270; Carter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 317, 322; Moore v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 338, 340; Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325; Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U. S. 567, 571; Royall v. Virginia, 116 U. S. 572; Royall v. Virginia, 121 U. S. 102; Sands v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 585; Stewart v. Virginia, 117 U. S. 612;…
-
Neild v. Dist. of Columbia, 110 F.2d 246 (D.C. Cir. 1940)…46. Shwab v. Doyle, 258 U.S. 529, 535, 42 S.Ct. 391, 66 L.Ed. 747, 26 A.L.R. 1454. Story, J., in Society for Propagation of the Gospel v. Wheeler, Fed.Cas. No. 13,156, 2 Gall. 105, 139. See also, Sturges v. Carter, 114 U.S. 511, 519, 5 S.Ct. 1014, 29 L.Ed. 240; 2 Cooley, Taxation, 4th Ed. 1924, § 513; Gray, Limitations of Taxing Powers, 1906, § 1828: “ * “ * laws which decree consequences or create liabilities, arising out of facts which existed or transactions which took place before the enactment of the…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U.S. 769 (U.S. 1882)