Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-02


anomaly cannot be justified or admit.
ted. The payment required ~ prelin-
mary to license, he held, Is in the nv
ture Of tax, and is due to the State. II
is an occupat on tax for which the IL
cense is merely q receipt and not an
authority except in that sense, because
it is laid and collected as revenue and
not merely IS incident to the generst
police power of the statute.
He quoted from Chief.J Justice Chase,
in Mcclure against the Commonwealth,
TO show that the granting license
must be regarded as nothing more than
q mere form of imposing tax. He
maintained that the fact that party
complying with statutory conditions
is entitled as Of right to q license is
conclusive that the payment is tax
laid for revenue and not for the pur-
pose Of regulation.
ave think it entirely clear" the
Court says, "both from the nature OF
the case and upon the authority that
payments were demandable by the State,
for. the license applied for by the plain
tiff are taxes within the meaning of the
act Of March 80, 1871, in the discharge
Of which coupons were receivable by its
terms, and that the plaintiff must be
regarded after making the tender al
legged, in the same situation in law as if
be had rendered gold or silver
coin or other lawful money Of the
United States. In the present case
the plaintiff has been prevented from
obtaining license to practice his
profession in violation Of his rights un-
der the Constitution Of the United
States. To punish him for practicing
it without license thus withheld is
equally denial Of his rights under the
Constitution of the United States, and
the law, under the authority of which
this is attempted, must on that account
and in bis case be regarded as null and
void. The judgment Of the Court Of
Appeals of Virginia is accordingly re-
versed, and the cause is remanded with
directions to take further proceed
ings therein in accordance with law
and in conformity with this opinion.
No. 973--Robert P. Barry Us. E. G.
Edmunds, treasurer Of Fauquier
county, Va, in error to the Circuit
Court of the United States for the
Eastern district of Virginia.
This was an action of trespass
brought by plaintiff in the Circuit
Court of the United States for the
Eastern district Of Virginia. In his
declaration he sets forth that he ten
dered coupons in payment Of his taxes,
which were refused, and that defendant
levied on his property in order to
compel him to pay his taxes in
another medium. Defendant plead
to the jurisdiction of the Circuit
Court, alleging that as the plaintiff
and defendant were both citizens of the
State of Virginia, the courts of that
State had exclusive jurisdiction of the
alleged cause Of action. The Circuit
Court held that it was without jurisdc-
ton, for the reason that the amount of
taxes due was less than 500 and the
property seized was worth less than
5000. This writ Of error was brought
10 review that judgment. The judgment
vas reversed. Justice Matthews de-
liveIed the opinion.
No. 1O09-Wi lliam II. Sands rs. f. G.
Edmunds, treasurer Of Fauquier coun-
ty, Va, in error to the Supreme Court
Of Appeals of Virginia.
Sards rendered to Edmunds, in pay
ment Of his license-tax as an attorney at
law, a coupon for SIS, cut from bond
issued under the act Of March 30, 1871.
De PENDANT refused TO receive the coupon,
on the ground that the acts Of February
I, 1884, and March Is, 1884, require
all license-taxes TO be paid in money
only, and not in coupons. The plaintiff
prayed that mdHd0muS nist be issued
commanding Edmunds to show cause
why a peremptory manddmus should
not issue commanding him to re-
ceive the coupon. The writ was de-
MED by the Circuit Court Of Fauquier
county, and on application to the Su-
preme Court of Appeals of Viz
ginia that judgment was affirmed
by refusal to allow an appeal. To re-
verse that judgment this writ OF error
is prosecuted. Justice Matthews, in
delivering the opinion Of the court, held
that the right of the plaintiff to pay
his license in coupons is affirmed by
the opinion in the case Of Royal Us.
The State Of Virginia, and his remedy
10 have them received for verification
and to recover back money paid for his
license is secured to him by the terms
of the act Of January 4, 1882, which
for such purposes was upheld by this
court as a valid enactment in Antoni
Us. Greenhow, and under authority of
these decisions the judgment of the SD
preme Court of Appeals Of Virginia is
reversed, and the cause is remanded,
with directions to take further proceed
ings according to law and in conformity
with this opinion.
No. 10ll-R. b. Chafiin rs. William
Taylor, in error to Supreme Court OF
Appeals of Virginia.
Chaffin rendered to defendant, who
was treasurer of Henrico county, Va,
in payment OF the State taxes due on
his property situated in that county,
tax-receivable coupons which defendant
refused to receive, and afterwards levied
on and seized plaintiffs horse and sold
it to force him to pay his taxes in
another medium. Plaintiff then sued
defendant fer trespass. and defendant
pleaded the acts Of the Legislature Of
Virginia commanding him to refuse said
coupons and to levy Notwithstanding
such tender. The Circuit Court held
that defence to be a good one. The
plaintiff appealed to the Supreme
Court of the United States, which
held such State laws to be I'M
constitutional, and remanded the case
10 the Circuit Court with instructions
to have it tried by jury. When the
case came On to be tried defendant
offered the plea that the coupons had
not been verified and identified accord
ing to the provisions of the act Of Jau-
uary IA. 1882, before said tender, and
| plaintiff did not prepay his taxes be-