Amy v. the Supervisors

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSWAYNE
Citation20 L.Ed. 101,78 U.S. 136,11 Wall. 136
PartiesAMY v. THE SUPERVISORS
Decision Date01 December 1870

78 U.S. 136
20 L.Ed. 101
11 Wall. 136
AMY
v.
THE SUPERVISORS.
December Term, 1870

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

Page 137

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 practice notes
  • Davis v. Scherer, No. 83-490
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1984
    ..."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 constitu......
  • McIntosh v. Weinberger, Nos. 85-2023
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 9, 1987
    ...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 can find, no recent case other th......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...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......
  • State v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. of Scranton, Pennsylvania
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • October 2, 1915
    ...motive or otherwise. (Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1, 72 N.W. 797: Throop on Public Officers, sec. 724.) In case of Amy v. Supervisors, 78 U.S. 136, 11 Wall. 136, 20 L.Ed. 101, Mr. Justice Swayne, delivering the opinion of the supreme court of the United States, said: "The rule is well......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
64 cases
  • Davis v. Scherer, No. 83-490
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1984
    ..."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 constitu......
  • McIntosh v. Weinberger, Nos. 85-2023
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 9, 1987
    ...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 can find, no recent case other th......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...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......
  • State v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. of Scranton, Pennsylvania
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • October 2, 1915
    ...motive or otherwise. (Baxter v. Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1, 72 N.W. 797: Throop on Public Officers, sec. 724.) In case of Amy v. Supervisors, 78 U.S. 136, 11 Wall. 136, 20 L.Ed. 101, Mr. Justice Swayne, delivering the opinion of the supreme court of the United States, said: "The rule is well......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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