Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-04-21

and declared every step 70 eniorce the
| tax thereafter taken TO be without war
rant Of law, and therefore wrong. This
strips the defendant Of his official
character and convicts him Of personal
violation Of the plaintiffs rights, for
which he must personally answer.
9th. II is no objection TO remedy in
such cases that the statute, the applica-
ton Of which in q particular case is
sought to be prevented, is not void on
its face, but it is complained Of only be-
cause its operation in particular in
stance works a violation Of constitu-
tional right; for cases are numerous
where the tax laws of State which in
their general and proper application are
perfectly valid, have been held to be-
come void in particular case, either as
unconstitutional regulations Of COM
merce, or as violations Of contract
prohibited by constitution, or because
in some other way they operate to de-
privc party complaining Of the right
secured to him by the Constitution Of
the United States.
10th. In the cases Of detinue action
is purely defensive on the part Of the
plaintiff. It's object is merely to resist
an attempted wrong and to restore the
status in quo as it was when the right
to be yindicsted was invaded. 1t is
analogous to preventive remedy Of in
junction in equity where that jurisdic-
ton is invoked, Of which frequent ex-
amples occur in cases to prevent illegal
taYstisn of national banks by State
authorities.
l1th. The suit authorized by the act
of the General Assembly Of Virginia Of
January &c, 1882, against collector Of
taxes refusing to accept the tender Of
coupons to recover back amount paid
under protest, is no remedy at all for
breach Of contract which required him
TO receive coupons in payment. The
taxpayer and eoupon-holder has
right to say he will not pay the amount
second time, and insisting upon his
tender as equivalent to payment,
resist further exaction, and treat as a
wropg-doer the officer who seizes his
property to enforce it. The right to
pay in coupons cannot be treated as
mere right Of set-off, which is part Of
the remedy merely when given by gen.
ersl law, and therefore subject to mod
ifieation or repeal, because the law
which gave it is also . contract, and
therefore cannot be changed without
mutual consent.
18th. Neither can it be considered an |
adequate remedy in view of the sup |
posed necessity for summary proceed
ings in matters of revenue and conve-
nience Of State, which requires that !
prompt collection of taxes should not |
be hindered or embarrassed, for the |
revenue system must yield to the con-
tract which the State has lawfully made,
and the obligation Of which by the Con-
stitution it is forbidden to impair.
18th. The act of the General Assem-
bly, Of Virginia Of January 26, 1882,
and the amendatory act Of March Ii,
1884, are unconstitutional and void,
because they impair the obligation Of
the contract Of the State with the cou-
pom. holder under the act of March 30, |
IL. and that being the main object Of |
q TWO acts, the vice which invali- |
Gett' them pervades them throughout
an in all their provisions. 1t is
not practicable to separate those |
parts which repeal and abolish actions |
Of trespass, and trespass on case, and !
other particular forms of action as rene
dies for the Taxpayer who has rendered
his coupons in payment of taxes, from
the main objects of the acts which that
prohibition was intended to effectuats
and it follows that the whole of these
and similar statutes must be declared I
unconstitutional, null, and void. 1t
also follows that these statutes can't be
regarded in the courts Of the United
States as laws of the State, to be
obeyed as rules of decision in trials at
common law under Section 72l Revised
Statutes, or as regulating the practice
of those courts under section Ola Re-
vised Statutes.
18th. The present case is not covered
by the decision in Antoni rs. Green
how, l07 United States, 700, the points
now involved being expressly reserved
in the judgment in that case.
The points Of the decision of the
court in the other cases of this group
are as follows
Nos. $50 and 1860. Covered by
above opinion in No. 5SS.
No. S26, Allen, Auditor, against the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company.
The court holds First. That the gene
raj questions arising and argued in
this case are fully discussed and de-
sided in the case Of Poindexter rs.
Greenhow, No. 5SS. Second. The
remedy by injunction to prevent
the collections of taxes by distrant
upon rolling-stock, machinery, cars,
and engines, and other property of rail-
road corporations, after the tender of
payment in tax-receivable coupons, is
sanctioned by repeated decisions of this
court, and has become a common and
unquestioned practice in similar cases
when exemptions have been claimed
by virtue Of the Constitution of the
United States, the ground of inrisdic-
ton being that there is no adequate
remedy at law.
In another allied case, No. 1878,
Marye against Parsons, the court holds
that the contract right Of a coupon
holder under the Virginia act of March
80, 1871, whereby his coupons are re-
ceivsble in payment of taxes, can be
exercised only by the taxpayer,
and bill in equity for an in-
junction to restrain 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. Such bill calls
'or decree declaring merely an alb s
'tract right, and does not show any 7
preach of contract or other ground of !
'elief !
In No. 500, Carter against Green j
low, the court holds First. That the !
9th clause of section 600 Of the Re- d