SINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
v.
WRIGHT

U.S. | 1891-12-07
No. 13
141 U.S. 696 Supreme Court of the United States (1891) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 35 L. Ed. 906 · 12 S. Ct. 103 · SCDB 1891-042 · 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2563
Cited by 51 cases

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.

Synopsis

Singer Manufacturing Company sought to enjoin Georgia from collecting license taxes on sewing machine dealers, claiming the tax unlawfully discriminated between individual retailers and corporate dealers. The Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot because Singer had paid the disputed taxes after the lower court dismissed its bill for injunction, eliminating the equitable basis for injunctive relief, though the Court noted Singer could pursue a separate legal action to recover the paid taxes if it could prove they were illegal.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Field,

Mr. Justice Field,

• after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

We a,re relieved from a. consideration of jfche interesting questions presented as to the validity of the legislation of Georgia, levyingja license tax upon dealers in sewing machines, arising • from the alleged discrimination made between retail dealers who are individuals and retail dealers who are companies, or wholesale dealers in such machines, where the tax required has not been paid by the manufacturing companies, as the taxes, to enjoin the collection of which this suit was instituted, have been paid by the complainant since the decree dismissing the bill was entered. This appears from the certificate of the comptroller general and the representation of the attorney general of the State, accompanied by copies of the writs of execution on which they were collected, with the receipts of the sheriff endorsed thereon. The taxes being paid, the further prosecution of this suit to enjoin their collection would present only a moot question, upon which we have neither the right nor the inclination to express an opinion.

This subject was considered somewhat at length in Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547. The payment of the taxes was, it is true, made under protest, the complainant declaring at the time that they were illegal, and that it was. not liable for them; that the payment was made under compulsion of the writs; and that it intended to demand, sue for and recover back the amounts paid. If this enforced collection and protest were sufficient to preserve to the complainant the right to proceed for the restitution of the money, upon proof of the illegality of the taxes, such redress must be sought in an action - at law. It does not continue in existence the equitable remedy by injunction which was sought in the present suit. The equitable ground for the relief prayed ceased with the payment of the taxes.

The appeal must therefore he dismissed; and it is so ordered.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

  • POE v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1961)
    …; Arizona v. California, 283 U. S. 423; International Longshoremen’s Union v. Boyd, 347 U. S. 222. Cf. Coffman v. Breeze Corporations, 323 U. S. 316. See, e. g., San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 116 U. S. 138; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651; Kimball v. Kimball, 174 U. S. 158; Tennessee v. Condon, 189 U. S. 64; American Book Co. v. Kansas, 193 U. S. 49; Jones v. Montague, 194 U. S. 147; Security Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, 200 U. S. 446; Richardson v.…
  • Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1895)
    …ta County v. Glidden, 113. U. S. 222; or ¡when, pending a suit concerning the validity of the assessment of a tax, the tax was paid; San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 116 U. S. 138; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547; Singer Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696; or the amount of the tax was tendered, and deposited in, a bank, which by statute had the same effect as actual payment and receipt of the money; California v. San Pablo & Tulare Railroad, 149 U. S. 308. Where appeals were taken from a decree of'…
  • California v. San Pablo & Tulare R.R. Co., 149 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1893)
    …circumstances. Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251, 255; Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419; Wood Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333; San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 116 U. S. 138; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547; Singer Manuf. Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696. See also Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578. Writ of error dismissed.…

Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw