Preston v. Calloway
| Decision Date | 01 December 1910 |
| Docket Number | 2,039. |
| Citation | 183 F. 19 |
| Parties | PRESTON v. CALLOWAY et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
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.
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 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. 717; Hatcher v. Hendrie, etc., Co., 133 F. 267, 68 C.C.A. 19; Brun v. Mann, 151 F. 145-150, 80 C.C.A. 513, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 154.
The other question in this case are covered by the opinion in the other case.
The decree of the lower court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Star Pub. Co.
...Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2 Wall. 609, 633, 17 L. Ed. 886; Central Trust Co. v. Bridges, 57 F. 753, 762, 6 C. C. A. 539; Preston v. Calloway, 183 F. 19, 20, 105 C. C. A. 311; Brun v. Mann, 151 F. 145, 150, 80 C. C. A. 513, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 154; Julian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U. S. 93, 113, ......
-
The State ex rel. Kern v. Stone
...court that court would have jurisdiction to determine what was applicable to the payment thereof. Bank v. Hughes, 152 F. 414; Preston v. Calloway, 183 F. 19; Babcock Millard, 2 F. Cas. No. 699; 4 F. Stat. 298. Fifth: If this writ is ordered, Wills & Sons not being parties will not be bound ......
- Preston v. Sturgis Milling Co.
-
Cushman v. Warren-Scharf Asphalt Paving Co.
... ... H ... C. Cook Co. v. Beecher, 217 U.S. 497, 30 Sup.Ct. 601, 54 ... L.Ed. 855, is in no way in conflict with Preston v ... Calloway, 183 F. 19, 105 C.C.A. 311 (C.C.A., 6th ... Circuit). In the former case a suit against directors of a ... corporation to enforce ... ...