240 U.S. 122 (1916), 213, Dodge v. Brady

Docket Nº:No. 213
Citation:240 U.S. 122, 36 S.Ct. 277, 60 L.Ed. 560
Party Name:Dodge v. Brady
Case Date:February 21, 1916
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 122

240 U.S. 122 (1916)

36 S.Ct. 277, 60 L.Ed. 560

Dodge

v.

Brady

No. 213

United States Supreme Court

February 21, 1916

Argued October 14, 15, 1915

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Syllabus

Under the exceptional conditions of this case, while there may have been ground for the district court dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction, as there was a basis for taking jurisdiction and the decision was clearly right on the merits, this Court does not reverse, but

Page 123

affirms the judgment which put an end to an absolutely useless controversy.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., ante, p. 1, followed to effect that the Income Tax Law of 1913 is not unconstitutional in any of the respect involved in that or this action.

The facts, which involve the constitutionality and application of the Income Tax Law of 1913, are stated in the opinion.

Page 124

WHITE, J., lead opinion

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellants are the same persons who sued in Dodge v. Osborn, just decided, ante, p. 118. After the dismissal of that suit by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for want of jurisdiction, the parties, on June 10, 1914, filed their bill in the court below against the Collector

Page 125

of Internal Revenue to enjoin the collection of the surtaxes assessed against them, which were disputed in the previous case on substantially the same grounds alleged in the complaint in that case. The bill alleged, however, that plaintiffs had filed with the collector "an appeal or claim for the remission and abatement of the surtaxes" because of the unconstitutionality of the statute imposing them, and that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to whom the claim had been forwarded by the Collector, had such protest under advisement. Upon the filing of the bill, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, which was denied July 29, 1914. On the same day, by leave of court, a supplemental bill was filed which alleged that, since the filing of the original bill, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had ruled adversely upon plaintiffs' protest, and that thereupon they had paid the surtaxes to the collector under protest, and they prayed a recovery of the amount paid to the collector and for the other relief asked in the original bill. The...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP