HANNEWINKLE
v.
GEORGETOWN
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 taxpayer sought to enjoin the collection of a tax based solely on its alleged illegality. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the bill, holding that equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised to restrain tax collection on the ground of illegality alone; instead, there must be additional circumstances such as fraud, threat of multiplicity of suits, irreparable injury, or a cloud on title to invoke equitable relief, with the proper remedy for illegal taxation being at law through certiorari or trespass.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.
The action in this case cannot be sustained. It has been the settled law of the country for a great many years, that an-injunction bill to restrain the collection of a tax, on the sole ground of the illegality of the tax, cannot be maintained. There must be au allegation of fraud; that it creates a cloud upon the title; that there is apprehension of multiplicity of suits, or some cause presenting a case of. equity jurisdiction. This was decided as early as the days of Chancellor Kent, in Mooers v. Smedley, * and has been so held from that time onward. The remedy was held to be at law by writ of certiorari or by action of trespass. It has long been held, also, that thére exists no cloud upon the title which justifies the interference of a court of equity, where the proceedings are void upon their face, that is, the same record which must be introduced to establish the title claimed, will show that there is no title.† The whole subject has been recently examined in this court in Dows v. The City of Chicago. * The head note of the case is in these words: “A suit in equity will not lie to restrain the collection of a tax on the sole ground that the tax is illegal. There must exist in addition, special circumstances bringing the case under some recognized head of equity jurisdiction, such as that the enforcement of the tax would lead to a multiplicity of suits or produce irreparable injury, or where the property is real estate, throw a cloud upon the title of the complainant.” The sole ground of the present bill is the illegality of the tax. We are all of the opinion that the bill states no cause of action, and that it was properly dismissed. Judgment affirmed. * 6 Johnson’s Chancery, 28. † Heywood v. City of Buffalo, 14 New York, 534; Susquehanna Bank v. Supervisors Broome County, 25 New York, 312. * 11 Wallace, 109.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co. of Fla., 284 U.S. 498 (U.S. 1932)…tax there exist special and extraordinary circumstances sufficient to bring the case within some acknowledged head of equity jurisprudence, a suit may be maintained to enjoin the collector. Dows v. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108. Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 547. State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, 614. Section 3224 is declaratory of the principle first mentioned and is to be construed as near as may be. in harmony with it and the reasons upon which it rests. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Kel…
-
Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1897)…il the damages were paid or secured. The act of March 3, 1809, has more than once been brought before this court, without a doubt of its constitutionality being expressed. Goszler v. Georgetown, (1821) 6 Wheat. 593; Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, (1872) 15 Wall. 547. In later acts authorizing the laying out of highways, or the construction of other public improvements, in the District of Columbia, Congress has repeatedly made provision for the deduction of benefits in estimating the compensation to be paid to…
-
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Tr. Co., 157 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1895)…court has repeatedly said that the illegality of a tax is not ground for the issuance of an injunction against its collection if there be an adequate remedy at law open to the payer. Dows v. City of Chicago, 11 Wall. 108; Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 547; Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U. S. 531; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575; Union Pacific Railway v. Cheyenne, 113 U. S. 516; Milwaukee v. Koeffler, 116 U. S. 219; Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339- — -as in the case where the…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence