Allen v. Baltimore Co

Decision Date20 April 1885
Citation5 S.Ct. 925,114 U.S. 311,29 L.Ed. 200
PartiesALLEN, Auditor, etc., and others v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. 1
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

F. S. Blair, Atty. Gen., R. t. Merrick, and A. H. Garland, for appellants.

John K. Cowen and Hugh J. Sheffey, for appellee.

MATTHEWS, J.

This is a bill in equity filed by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, a corporation created by the laws of Maryland, and a citizen of that state, against the appellants, who were defendants below, of whom Allen is auditor of public accounts; Revely, treasurer of the state of Virginia; and Hamilton, treasurer of Augusta county, in that state; and all citizens of Virginia. The complainant is the lessee in possession of certain railway lines in Virginia,——the winchester & Potomac, the Winchester & Strasburg, and the Strasburg & Harrisonburg Railroads,——and also operates a railroad belonging to the Valley Railroad Company in that state.

It is alleged in the bill that, 'by the twentieth and twenty-first sections of an act of the general assembly of Virginia, approved on the twenty- econd day of April, 1882, and entitled 'An act for the assessment of taxes on persons, property, income, and licenses, and imposing taxes thereon for the support of the government and free schools, and to pay the interest on the public debt,' provision was made for the assessment and taxation of the railroads within the state; the board of public works, acting upon the reports of the officers of the railroad companies, and upon the best and most reliable information that could be procured, being authorized and required to ascertain and assess the value of the real and personal property of such companies for taxation at the rate of forty cents on every hundred dollars of the estimated value thereof and said act further provides that it shall be the duty of every railroad company so assessed, to pay into the treasury of the state, within sixty days after receipt of notice of such assessment, the tax imposed by law; and a company failing to pay the tax assessed upon its property, shall be immediately assessed under the direction of the auditor of public accounts, by any person appointed by him for the purpose, rating their real estate and rolling stock at $20,000 per mile, and a tax thereon levied of forty cents on the $100 of such fixed value; and the amount so assessed shall be collected by any treasurer to whom the auditor may deliver the assessment, who is authorized to distrain and sell any personal property of such company for the amount of such taxes.'

It is further alleged that on November 22, 1882, the board of public works assessed said railroads for taxation at the rate of $15,000 per mile, of which notice was given to the complainant, on January 17, 1883, as the party liable by law for the payment of the taxes assessed upon them; that on March 16, 1884, within 60 days thereafter, the complainant obtained from the auditor of public accounts warrants to pay into the treasury the several amounts charged as to each of said railroads, which the treasurer of the commonwealth, by indorsement thereon, required to be paid into a specified bank in the city of Richmond, that being the only mode recognized by law for making such payments; that, at that time, the complainant, being the owner and holder of the requisite amount of coupons for interest, cut from bonds of the state of Virginia issued under the act of March 20, 1871, entitled 'An act to provide for the funding and payment of the public bebt,' and receivable by virtue thereof in payment of taxes, tendered the same, with coin sufficient exactly to make the required amounts, to the said bank in Richmond, in discharge of said warrants; that said coupons were refused, and the same having been set apart, whe complainant brings the same into court, subject to its order in payment of said taxes; that similar tenders were made to the auditor of public accounts, and to the treasurer of state, on the same day, each of whom refused to receive the same; that thereupon the defendant Allen, the auditor of public accounts, proceeded to assess the said railroads upon their real estate, not having any rolling stock, at $20,000 per mile, as being in default for non-payment of the taxes assessed by the board of public works; and placed copies of said assessment in the hands of the defendant Hamilton, as treasurer of Augusta county, for collection, in pursuance of which he levied upon certain cars and locomotives belonging to the complainant, used in operating said railroads, for part of said taxes, and threatens to make further levies upon other cars and engines, to be sold for payment of said taxes so assessed by the auditor of public accounts.

The bill prays for an injunction on the several grounds of irreparable damage; that the acts complained of prevent the proper exercise by the complainant of its franchise, involving a public duty, of operating the railroads of which it is lessee, and in possession; to avoid multiplicity of suits; the want of adequate remedies at law; to remove the cloud upon the title to the railroad prop rty, occasioned by the fact that assessed taxes are a lien thereon; and because it is necessary to protect the complainant in the immunity to which it is entitled, by virtue of the contract with the state of Virginia, secured against state laws impairing its obligation by the constitution of the United States.

It is admitted by the parties in the record that the coupons tendered are genuine, though not verified as required by the act...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Ex parte Edward Young
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 23, 1908
    ...among which were Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270, 29 L. ed. 185, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 903, 962; Allen v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 114 U. S. 311, 29 L. ed. 200, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 925, 962; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1, 35 L. ed. 363, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 699; Re Tyler, 149 U. S. 164, 37 L. e......
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Bosworth
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • September 22, 1913
    ...... such as. [209 F. 389] . equity will enjoin is made certain by the following cases in. that court, to wit: Allen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. Company, 114 U.S. 311, 5 Sup.Ct. 925, 962, 24 L.Ed. 200;. Scully v. Bird, 209 U.S. 481, 28 Sup.Ct. 597, 52. L.Ed. ......
  • Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Davidson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • March 21, 1906
    ...several cases, among which are Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270, 5 Sup. Ct. 903, 29 L. Ed. 185; Allen v. Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co., 114 U. S. 311, 5 Sup. Ct. 925, 962, 29 L. Ed. 200; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1, 11 Sup. Ct. 699, 35 L. Ed. 363; In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 164, 13 Sup......
  • Larson v. Domestic Foreign Commerce Corporation
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1949
    ...will then be enjoined if the plaintiff otherwise satisfies the requirements for equitable intervention. Allen v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 114 U.S. 311, 5 S.Ct. 925, 29 L.Ed. 200; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362, 14 S.Ct. 1047, 38 L.Ed. 1014; Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Pleading sovereign immunity: the doctrinal underpinnings of Hans v. Louisiana and Ex Parte Young.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 61 No. 5, March 2009
    • March 1, 2009
    ...v. Taylor, 116 U.S. 567 (1886) (granting plaintiff's action for trespass de bonis asportatis); Allen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 114 U.S. 311 (1885) (issuing an injunction against selling railroad's property to satisfy its tax obligations, and issuing mandamus to compel the officer to......
  • WAS BIVENS NECESSARY?
    • United States
    • May 1, 2021
    ...Implied Constitutional Actions, and the Scope of Section 1983, 77 GEO. L.J. 1493, 1518-19 (1989). (63) Allen v. Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co., 114 U.S. 311, 311-13, 317 (64) See id. at 316. (65) Ward v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 253 U.S. 17, 20, 24 (1920). (66) Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota Count......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT