Amy v. the Supervisors
| Decision Date | 01 December 1870 |
| Parties | AMY v. THE SUPERVISORS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
AMY having obtained a judgment for money against Desmoines County, Iowa, in the Circuit Court for the District of Iowa, and not being paid, procured from the same court a mandamus against Burkholder, and several others, the supervisors of the county, to compel the levy of a tax. The mandamus not being obeyed, he sued them personally. They set up certain defences, to which he demurred. The court overruled the demurrer, and he brought the case here.
Mr. J. Grant, for the plaintiff in error, submitted a brief.
No opposing counsel.
Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case particularly, and delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa.
The plaintiff in error was the plaintiff in the court below. The declaration contains two counts. The first count alleges substantially that the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the county of Desmoines in the said Circuit Court; that afterwards such proceedings were had that a peremptory writ of mandamus was issued from the court and duly served upon the defendants as supervisors of said county, whereby they were commanded to levy a tax sufficient to pay the judgment and costs; that in September, 1868, it was their duty to levy such a tax, and that they neglected to do so, whereby the plaintiff sustained damage to the amount of $12,108 3/100.
The second count sets forth substantially the same facts; and, further, the provisions of the code of Iowa prescribing the duty of the defendants, as supervisors, under such circumstances, and declaring that a failure on their part to perform the duty enjoined, should render them personally responsible for the debt. It is further averred in this count that the judgment is in full force and unsatisfied, and that the defendants have levied no tax and made no provision for its payment, and that the plaintiff is thereby damaged in the sum stated in the first count.
The defendants, by their answer, set up three defences:
(1.) Nil debet.
(2.) That the District Court of Desmoines County had enjoined them from levying a tax to pay the judgment; that they were nevertheless proceeding to levy such tax when they were attached by order of the court for contempt of its process, and compelled to give bonds to answer said charge of contempt and to obey the injunction, and that those bonds were still in force and obligatory upon them.
(3.) That before the peremptory writ of mandamus was issued the legislature of Iowa repealed the statutory provision, whereby they were made individually liable for the delinquency charged against them, and that, by reason of such repeal, they are not so liable.
The plaintiff demurred to the answer. The court overruled the demurrer and gave judgment for the defendants.
The counsel for the plaintiff in error has filed an able and elaborate brief. None has been submitted in behalf of the defendants. A few remarks will be sufficient to dispose of the case.
The Circuit Court had authority to issue the writ of mandamus. It was the process resorted to by the plaintiff to procure satisfaction of his judgment. The State court was powerless to prevent its execution. In so far as concerned the process in question the injunction was a nullity. In such cases the two sets of tribunals—State and National—are as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Scherer, 83-490
...appellants' "ministerial" duties in the present case left to appellants a substantial measure of discretion. Cf. Amy v. The Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138, 20 L.Ed. 101 (1871); Kendall v. Stokes, 3 How. 87, 98, 11 L.Ed. 506, 833 (1845). Appellants were to determine, for example, what consti......
-
McIntosh v. Weinberger
...distinction between ministerial and discretionary duties of public officials has a long history. See, e.g., Amy v. The Supervisors, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 136, 138, 20 L.Ed. 101 (1870); Kendall v. Stokes, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 87, 98, 11 L.Ed. 506 (1845). However, the plaintiffs have cited, and we c......
-
State, on Inf. of McKittrick v. Williams
...Gray, 309, 63 Am. Dec. 741; Olmstead v. Dennis, 77 N.Y. 378; Clark v. Miller, 54 N.Y. 528; Keith v. Howard, 24 Pick. 292; Amy v. Barkholder, 11 Wall. 136, 20 L.Ed. 101; Coite v. Lynes, 33 Conn. 115; Mineter State, 14 Neb. 181, 15 N.W. 331; Dudley v. Flemingsburg, 72 S.W. 327; Stokes v. Stok......
-
State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, 36718.
...309, 63 Am. Dec. 741; Olmstead v. Dennis, 77 N.Y. 378; Clark v. Miller, 54 N.Y. 528; Keith v. Howard, 24 Pick. 292; Amy v. Barkholder, 11 Wall. 136, 20 L. Ed. 101; Coite v. Lynes, 33 Conn. 115; Mineter v. State, 14 Neb. 181, 15 N.W. 331; Dudley v. Flemingsburg, 72 S.W. 327; Stokes v. Stokes......