The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1883-05-24
The 3. & O. r. r. Gases.

lnthe application OF the i. IL o. Il. II.
Co., for an Injunction restraining the Col
Letting officer of the state from selling Ger.
tain rolling stock ON the Valley and other
branches OF the B. 81. o., Judge Bond, on
"Wednesday last, gave an opinion directly
antagonizing that of Judge Hughes deliv-
cred the day before, q synopsis of Which
we published last week. Judge Bond
granted the motion OF the petitioner, and is
sued the injunction prayed for, preventing
special Collector John Il. Hamilton, OF
Augusta county, from selling the rolling
stock operated by the Valley Railroad and
seized by him for taxes. The road had
rendered coupons in payment of the same,
which the auditor had refused. The Judge
decided that the complainant company is a
nonresident of the state asserting a right
which the Supreme Court in Antoni and
Greenhow decided that it has, and failure
to enforce which will cause it irreparable
damage. That the coupons must be re-
ceiyed for public taxes, when rendered, the
Supreme Court of the United States has,
at it's last term, emphaticalley decided
(Antoni VS.. Greenhow.) The company
rendered the coupons for taxes. and they
were rejected. The opinion also further
says: 1.-The complainant has no adequate
remedy at law. The writ of mandamus is
VI III avail W IL. IL lids pdlu Ibo ucut OIICc.
and would have to pay it again to get that
remedy. 1t cannot get it's goods back from
| the purchaser by replevin, for there is no
such action in Virginia. 1t cannot sue the
| tax collector for treSpaSS, for since the in
| StitutiOn of the suit of AntOni and Green
| how this State has by law forbidden it to do
| so. Altogether, it seems to me the COM
plant would be remediless and it's right a
delusion did not court of equity listen to
| it. The argument of the Attorney Gen
| eral that this action is not within the juriS-
diction Of this court because it is, in fact,
suit against the State, which does not per-
init itself to be sued does not seem to me
| to be sound. From the case OF the Whea-
| ton Bank and Osborn down to the Airing
| ton case, recently decided, this form of ac-
| ton has been sustained by the Supreme
Court in proper cases. You may not sue
| the State unless she consents, and if she be
an indispensable party not consenting, you
can maintain no action at all. But she is
not necessary party and the complainant
| here can prevent his anticipated wrong and
irreparable damage byrestraining the party
| who is about to commit it without joining
| the State. Nor does the fact that the
State has provided a remedy for the COM
plainant deprive him OF any other that ex-
| lists. The complainant is nonresident of
to apply to the United States courts for the
exercises of their equitable jurisdiction in
a proper case. That equitable jurisdiction
was not derived from the State, but from
the Constitution of the United States, and
remains the same no matter what laws are
passed by the States respecting legal RENE
der or forms Of procedure. This is the
proper forum of the nonresident citizen,
and he is not deprived of his rights in it by
the passage of any act by the legislature Of
| Virginia respecting suits at law against
the tax collectors of the State. We have
here nonresident citizen. He seeks
equitable relief against a tax collector who
is about to do an act which, if this primal
facie case made in the bill can be MAIN
tanned, will do irreparable damage in vio-
lation of the Constitution of the United
States. This jurisdiction has been eXercis-
ed many times by the United States courts
in like cases, and, in my judgment, the
prayer of the bill should be so granted and
the preliminary injunction issued as prayed,
and it will be so ordered" Judge Hughes,
in his opinion decided against the Balti-
! more and Ohio. The court is divided, and
the effect will be to get the case before the
the Supreme Court of the United States.
In the meantime the railroad company can
not be interferred with.