Poindexter v. Greenhow
Citation | 5 S.Ct. 903,114 U.S. 270,29 L.Ed. 185 |
Parties | POINDEXTER v. GREENHOW, Treasurer, etc. 1 |
Decision Date | 20 April 1885 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 270-272 intentionally omitted] A. H. Garland, R. T. Merrick, and F. S. Blair, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Wm. L. Royall, D. H. Chamberlain, Wm. M. Evarts, and Wager Swayne, for plaintiff in error.
The plaintiff in error, who was also plaintiff below, brought his action in detinue on the twenty-sixth day of April, 1883, against Samuel C. Greenhow, for the recovery of specific personal property, to-wit, one office desk of the value of $30, before a police justice in the city of Richmond, who dismissed the same for want of Jurisdiction. An appeal was taken by the plaintiff to the hustings court for the city of Richmond, where the facts were found by agreement of parties to be as follows: That the plaintiff was a resident of the city of Richmond, in the state of Virginia; that he owed to the state of Virginia, for taxes on property owned by him in said city for the year 1882, $12.45, which said t xes were due and leviable for, under the laws of Virginia, on the first day of December, 1882; that the defendant, Samuel C. Greenhow, was the treasurer of the city of Richmond, and as such is charged by law with the duty of collecting taxes due to the state of Virginia by all residents of said city; that on the twenty-fifth day of April, 1883, the defendant, as such treasurer and collector of taxes, made upon the plaintiff demand for the payment of the taxes due by him to the state as aforesaid; that the plaintiff, when demand was so made for payment of his taxes, tendered to the defendant in payment thereof 45 cents in lawful money of the United States, and coupons issued by the state of Virginia under the provisions of the act of the general assembly of that state of March 30, 1871, entitled 'An act to provide for the funding and payment of the public debt;' that said coupons so tendered by plaintiff were all due and past maturity, and amounted in the aggregate to $12, and were all cut from bonds issued by the said state of Virginia under the provisions of the said act of March 30, 1871; that the said coupons and money so tendered by the plaintiff amounted together to exactly the sum so due the state by the plaintiff for taxes; that the defendant refused to receive the said coupons and money so tendered in payment of the plaintiff's taxes; that the defendant, after said tender was made, as he deemed himself required to do by the acts of assembly of Virginia, entered the plaintiff's place of business in said city and levied upon, and took possession of the desk, the property of the plaintiff now sued for, for the purpose of selling the same to pay the taxes due from him; and that the said desk is of the value of $30, and still remains in possession of the defendant for the purpose aforesaid, he having refused to return the same to the plaintiff on demand.
The hustings court was of the opinion that the police justice erred in deciding that he had no jurisdiction, and that the issue in the action might have been tried by him, and that it should be tried by that court on the appeal; but it was also of the opinion that in tendering to the defendant, as part of the tender in payment of the plaintiff's taxes, the coupons mentioned and described, the plaintiff did not tender what the law required, nor what the defendant was, as treasurer, obliged to or should have received in payment of the plaintiff's taxes, under the provisions of the act of the general assembly ov Virginia, approved January 26, 1882, entitled 'An act to provide for the more efficient collection of the revenue to support government, maintain the public schools, and to pay interest on the public debt;' that the plaintiff's remedy for the failure of the defendant, as treasurer, to receive coupons in payment of taxes, was to be found in the provisions of said act of January 26, 1882; and that, therefore, the defendant does not unlawfully or wrongfully detain the plaintiff's property levied on by the defendant, as treasurer of the city of Richmond, for the plaintiff's taxes; and judgment was accordingly rendered for the defendant.
It appears from the record that there was drawn in question the validity of the said act of the general assembly of Virginia, approved January 26, 1882, and of the eighteenth section of the act of the general assembly of the state of Virginia, approved April 1, 1879, which authorizes the collection of delinquent taxes by distraint of personal property, upon the ground that these acts are repugnant to section 10 of article 1 of the constitution of the United States, which declares that no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, the judgment of the court being in favor of the validity of said acts and against the rights claimed by the plaintiff under the constitution of the United States. The hustings court is the highest court of the state to which the said cause could be taken.
The act of January 26, 1882, the validity of which is thus questioned, is as ollows:
'If it be determined that the same was wrongfully collected, for any reason going to the merits of the same, then the court trying the case may certify of record that the same was wrongfully paid and ought to be refunded; and, thereupon, the auditor of public accounts shall issue his proper warrant for the same, which shall be paid in preference to other claims on the treasury, except such as have priority by constitutional requirement.
'(2) This act shall be in force from and after the first day of December, eighteen hundred and eighty-two.'
The eighteenth section of the act of April 1, 1879, (Acts 1878-79, p. 318,) so far as material, is that 'it shall be the duty of the treasurer, after the first day of December, to call upon each person chargeable with taxes and levies, who has not paid the same prior to that time, or upon the agent of such person resident within the county or corporat on, and, upon failure or refusal of such person or agent to pay the same, he shall proceed to collect by distress or otherwise.' Goods and chattels distrained by an officer, by provisions of other statutes then in force, were required to be sold at public sale after due notice, as prescribed.
The act of January 26, 1882, was amended by an act which was passed and took effect March 13, 1884, by the addition of the following sections:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chassanoil v. City of Greenwood
... ... United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 221, 23 L.Ed ... 563, 565; Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 99, 25 L.Ed. 550, ... 553; Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 304, 305, ... 330, 5 S.Ct. 903, 962, 29 L.Ed. 185, 197, 198, 207; ... Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co., 158 U.S ... ...
-
4115,4116,| United States ex rel. Miller v. Clausen
... ... Wallace, 255 ... U.S. 239, 41 Sup.Ct. 293, 65 L.Ed. 604; Simon v. Am ... Exchange Bank, 43 Sup.Ct. 165, 67 L.Ed ... ; ... Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 5 Sup.Ct. 903, ... 29 L.Ed. 191; Board of Liquidation et al. v. McComb, ... 92 U.S. 531, 35 L.Ed. 623; State v. Toole, ... ...
-
McElroy v. Swart
... ... White, 7 Wall ... 700; Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176, 192; Horn v. Lockhart, ... 17 Wall. 570; Keith v. Clark, 97 U.S. 454, 465; Poindexter v ... Greenhow, 5 S.Ct. 914 ... 2. IMMUNITY OF THE STATE FROM SUIT. That a state ... cannot be compelled by process of courts of its own ... ...
-
State, State Road Commission v. District Court
... ... and Federal protest' against extending to any agent the ... sovereign's exemption from legal process ... Poindexter v. Greenhow , 114 U.S. 270, 291 ... [330], 5 S.Ct. 903, 962, 29 L.Ed. 185, 193, 207 ... "The ... many claims of immunity from suit ... ...
-
Debunking Five Great Myths About the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule
...and respect for legitimate authority requires that it be suppressed even if this encumbers the search for truth. Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 291 (1885) (discussing how a lack of respect for legitimate constitutional authority would undermine the efficacy of the Constitution). 217 ......
-
Resurrection of a dead remedy: bringing common law negligence back into employment law.
...Id. at 686. (169.) Id. (170.) Id. (171.) U.S. Const. amend. XIV, [section] 1. (172.) Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803). (173.) 114 U.S. 270, 303 (1884); see also U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, [section] (174.) Mo Const. art. I, [section][section] 10, 14. (175.) See Saint Louis County v. M......
-
RECALIBRATING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: HOW TANZIN V. TANVIR, TAYLOR V. RIOJAS, AND MCCOY V. ALAMU SIGNAL THE SUPREME COURT'S DISCOMFORT WITH THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
...officer who acts without authority is thus subject to the same legal rules as any private person."). (101) See Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 297 (102) Id. at 291. (103) Id see also Belknap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10, 18 (1896) (rejecting an official's defense of reasonableness); Bates v......
-
Severability as Conditionality
...(footnotes omitted)).25. Allen, 103 U.S. 80; see also Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895); Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1884); Stern, supra note 9, at 107-08 n.138. Note that this list includes only those cases in which the Court held that the unconstitutional......