STEWART
v.
VIRGINIA
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's proceeding to identify and verify coupons tendered for payment of state taxes was not a civil suit arising under the Constitution or federal laws within the jurisdiction of federal courts under the 1875 statute. The Court held that such proceedings involve only the narrow question of whether coupons are genuine and legally receivable, not whether the state must accept them for particular taxes, and therefore cannot raise federal constitutional or statutory questions.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justioe Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The order remanding this case is affirmed. A proceeding under the act of Assembly of Virginia,,approved January 14, 1882, Anioni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 771, as amended by the act Of March 12, 1884, for the “ identification and verification” of coupons tendered in payment of taxes, debts, or demands due the State, is not a suit of a civil nature ai’ising under the Constitution or laws of the United-States within' the meaning of the act of March 3, 1875,18 „Stat. 470, ch.
137. The only purpose of such a proceeding is to determine whether the coupons tendered “ are genuine, legal coupons, which are legally receivable for taxes, dues and demands.” The court has nothing to do in that proceeding with the obligation of the State to receive the coupons in payment of the particular tax or demand for which they were tendered. The tender being made, it becomes the duty of the collector, under the law, 'to receive and receipt' for the coupons.“ for the purpose of identification and verification,” and to deliver them to the judge of the •proper court to that end. . The tax-payer then files his petition praying “ that a jury be impaneled to try the question as to whether they are genuine, legal coupons, which are legally receivable for taxes, debts and demands.” This is the only issue that can be tried, and if finally decided in favor of the taxpayer, the coupons are to be received by the collector.for such of the taxes, dues and demands for which they were tendered as can; under the contract of the State, be paid in that way. The court has no authority under the law to determine in that proceeding what taxes-may be so paid. It thus appears that the issue to be tried cannot involve any question arising under the Constitution or laws' of the IJnitéd States.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Willing v. Chicago Auditorium Ass'n, 277 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1928)…2 K. & J. 753, 760; Lady Langdale v. Briggs, 8 DeG. M. & G. 391, 427. As the proceeding is not a suit within the meaning of § 28 of the Judicial Code, the motions to remand the cause to the state court should have been granted. Stewart v. Virginia, 117 U. S. 612; Upshur County v. Rich, 135 U. S. 467; Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Oregon Water Board, 241 U. S. 440, 447. Whether, as the respondent contends, it has a remedy under the law of Illinois, we have no occasion to consider. Fulwiler v. McClun, 285 Ill. 17…
-
McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1898)…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; In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443; McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U. S. 662. For the first time in the history of this litigation has any appellate court, either state or Federal, distinctly ruled that the coupon provision of the act of 1871 was void. After th…