183 F. 19 (6th Cir. 1910), 2,039, Preston v. Calloway

Docket Nº:2,039.
Citation:183 F. 19
Party Name:PRESTON v. CALLOWAY et al.
Case Date:December 01, 1910
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 19

183 F. 19 (6th Cir. 1910)

PRESTON

v.

CALLOWAY et al.

No. 2,039.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

December 1, 1910

Helm Bruce (Helm & Helm, of counsel), for appellant.

H. X. Morton and James F. Fairleigh, for appellees.

Before SEVERENS and WARRINGTON, Circuit Judges, and COCHRAN, District judge.

COCHRAN, District Judge.

This case is exactly like tat of A. J. Preston v. Sturgis Milling Company, 183 F. 1, in which an opinion has been handed down simultaneously herewith, except that it concerns another taxing district of Union county, to wit, the Lindle Mills district, and the amount in controversy is less than $2,000. The amount of the tax sought to be collected by theenforcement

Page 20

of the lien created by section 25 of the act referred to in the other opinion (Sess. Acts 1869-70, c. 366) is $1,478.40. The appellee raised the question of jurisdiction in the lower court by demurrer to the bill, which was overruled and the jurisdiction sustained. We think this holding was sound. The object of the suit was to enforce payment of the tax in order to obtain satisfaction to that extent of the judgment theretofore rendered by the lower court on its law side. Though the bill was in form original, it was ancillary in its character, and hence the court had jurisdiction irrespective of the amount in controversy. Riggs v. Johnson, 6 Wall. 166-187, 18 L.Ed. 768; Pacific R.R. of Mo. v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 111 U.S. 505-522, 4 Sup.Ct. 583, 28 L.Ed. 498; Root v. Woolworth, 150 U.S. 401, 14 Sup.Ct. 136, 37 L.Ed. 1123; Central Nat. Bank v. Stevens, 169 U.S. 464, 18 Sup.Ct. 403, 42 L.Ed. 807; Phelps v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n, 112 F. 453, 50 C.C.A. 339, 61 L.R.A...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP