Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-04-21

! NlCts nm OF personal violation Of the plain
answer.
PARTICULAR CASES.
3. 1t is no objection to the remedy in such
| cases that the statute, application Of which in
particular case is sought To be prevented. is
| NOT Nolu on It's race, but is complained of only
! because its operation in q particular Instance
| works violation of constitutional right.
| LOT cases are numerous where tho tax laws of
! d otate Whlch IN their general and proper an
| phcatlon are perfectly valid have been held
| 10 become void In particular cases either as
| unconstitutional regulations of commerce. or
! Vloiatlons OF contract prohibited by the con-
stltuIlOn, or because In some other way they
| operate to deprive the party complaining of a
tignt secured to him by the constitution Of
| the United States
10. In cases Of detinue action is purely de-
iensiye on the part of the plaintiG. Its object
| ~ merely TO resist an attempted wrong and to
iCstoTe lne STATUS IN quo as IL was when the
| rlght 10 be vlndlcated was invaded. 1t is
analagous TO the preventive remedy of an in
junction in equity, where that jurisdiction is
! INVOKED, OF which frequent examples occur,
IN cases to prevent illegal taxation of national
! banks by state authorities.
THE AUTHORIZED SUIT NO REMEDY.
| IL. The suit authorized bv act of the Gene
raj Assembly OF Virginia of Jan. 20, 1882.
| against collector of taxes refusing to accept
Vehuer OF coupons to recover back an amount
| pald under protest, is no remedy at all for
! Dredcn OF contract which required him to re-
! celVe coupons in payment. The taXpaver and
coupon holder has a right o say he will not
| pay the amount a second time, and insisting
upon. upon ms tender as equivalent to payment, to
resist iurJher eXactlOn and treat as q wrong
| uoer the omcer who seiZes his property. To
| enforce right to pay in coupons cannot be
| treated as mere right Of set.of, which is
! part OF the remedy merely when given by the
| general law, land therefore subject to modih-
catlon or repeal, because the law which gave
! II IS also contract, and therefore cannot be
| changed without mutual consent
a of4o IN
remedy, in view of the supposed necessity, for
| summary proceedings in matters of the rove
nue. and convenience Of the State which re-
| qulfes that prompt collection of taxes should
| not be hindered or embarrassed, for the reve-
| nue. system must yield to q contract which the
| state has lawfully made, an obligation of
! impair.
| 4. The act of the General Assembly of Vir-
! glnla Of Jan. 26, 1882, and the amendatOry act
| OF March l3, 1884, are unconstitutional and
! Vold, because they impair obligation of con-
! tract Of the state with a coupon holder under
| the act of March 30, 1871, and that being the
| main object OF the Two acts the vice which in
| validates them perVades them throu ehout
+ and in all their provisions. 1t is not pract-
! cable TO separate those parts which repeal and
| abolish actions Of trespass, and trespass on
! the case and other particular forms OF action
| as remedies Tor taxpayer who hes rendered
! ms coupons IN payment of taxes from the man
! objects of the acts which that prohibition was
| intended to eheeiuate, and it follows that the
| declared TO be unconstitutional, null and void
| 1t also follows that these statutes cannot be
| regarded in courts Of the United States as
| laws of the State, to be obeyed as rules of de-
| cision in trials at common law under section
| III OF the Revised Statutes, or as regulating
! the practice Of those courts under s ection 9l4
of the Revised Statutes.
IA. The present case is not covered bv the
/ decision in Antoine VS.. GreenhoW (107 U. s..
| 700), the points now involved being expressly
reserved in the judgment in that case,
THE OTHER DECISIONS.
The points Of the decision of the court
in the other cases Of this group are as
| follows:
Nos. $50 and 1860 are covered by the
above opinion in No. 5SS.
| In No. S2G, Allen, Auditor against the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company,
the court holds
| J. That the general questions arising and
| argued in this case are fully discussed and de-
| clded IN the case Of POindeXter VS.. GreenloW,
! No. 5SS.
2. The remedy by injunction to prevent the
| collection of taxes by distrant upon rolling
| stock, machinery, cars and engines, and other
| property of railroad corporations, after the
| tender of payment in tax receivable coupOns
is sanctioned by repeated decisions of this
| court, and has become the common and un-
| questioned practice in similar cases when ex-
| emptions have been claimed by virtue of the
constitution Of the United States the ground
ofjurisdicton being that there is no adequate
remedy at law.
In another allied case, No. 1878, Ma
rye VS.. Parsons. the court holds that
| the contract right Of a coupon holder under
the Virginia act Of March 80, 1871, whereby
his coupons are receivable in payment OF
| taxes, can be exercised only by taxpayer,
and bill in equity for an injunction to re-
strain tax collectors from refusing to receive
them when rendered in payment Of taxes will
not lie in behalf Of the coupon holder who
does not allege himself to be also TAXPAYER
! Npcrpp Y
an abstract right, and does not show any
breach OF contract or other ground of relief.
TREsPAss NOT INCLUDED.
In No. 500, Garter VS.. Greenhow, the
court holds:
/. That the 10th clause of section G29 OF
the Revised Statutes authorizing suits, with
out reference to the sum or value in contro-
versy or the citizenship of parties, TO be
brought IN Circuit Conrts OF the United states
to redress deprivation under color OF the
state law of any right, privilege or immunity
secured by the state constitution of the
United States, in violation of section 1879 of
the Revised Statutes, does not embrace an
action OF trespass, or case In which the plain
tin seeks the recovery OF damages against
tax collector in Virginia, who having rejected
q tender Of tax receivable coupons, issued
under act of March 3d. 1871, seeks to collect
tine tax for which they were rendered by
seizure ard the sale Of the personal property
of the plaintiff.
2. That although the right to have such cou-
pOue received IN payment Of taxes ls founded
on a contract with the State. ard that the
right is protected by the constitution OF the
United States by article /, section 10, forbid
ding q State 90 pass any laws impairing obli-
cation Of contract, the only moGe Of redress
In case Of any disturbance or dispOsaession Of
property or other legal rights based on
such violation Of contract ID to have
judicial determination. Tn a SUIT between
individuals OF the iuvalidity Of the law under
which % wrong has been committed, no direct
action for the denial Of q right secured by
contract will he.
Another case, wise No. 0l1, Peasants
vs.. Greenhow, is covered by the above
opinion.
THE DISSENTING OPINION.
Justice Bradley read a carefully pre-
pared dissenting opinion, in which the
Chiof Justice, Justice Miller and Justice
Gray coucurred. The opinion has refer
ence particularly 90 case No. s2j, Allen
against the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
Company, and the fundamental ground Of
dissent as set forth by Justice Bradley is
that this proceeding and an other pro-
ceedings ON these coupons brought here
for review are virtually suits against the
state of Virginia % compel specific per-
formance by the State Of her agreement
70 receive said coupons IN payment OF an