Carter v. Greenhow

Decision Date20 April 1885
Citation114 U.S. 317,5 S.Ct. 928,29 L.Ed. 202
PartiesCARTER v. GREENHOW
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Wm. L. Royall, D. H. Chamberlain Wm. M. Evarts, and Wager Swayne, for plaintiff in error.

A. H. Ga land, R. T. Merrick, and F. S. Blair, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

MATTHEWS, J.

The plaintiff in error brought his action, in the circuit court of the United States, against the defendant, on May 7, 1883. His cause of action is set forth in the declaration as follows: 'Samuel S. Carter, plaintiff, complains of Samuel C. Greenhow, defendant, of a plea of trespass on the case, for that the said plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Virginia and a resident of the city of Richmond, in said state. That the plaintiff owns property in said city, and that he was lawfully assessed on said property by the officers of the state of Virginia, whose duty it was under the laws of Virginia to make such assessment, with taxes to be paid to the state of Virginia for the year 1882, and that said taxes were due and leviable for, on, and after the first day of December, 1882. That the defendant, Samuel C. Greenhow, is the treasurer of the city of Richmond, in the state of Virginia, and that the laws of Virginia make it his duty to collect all taxes due to the state of Virginia by residents of said city on property situated and being in said city. That on the third day of May, 1883, the plaintiff was indebted to the said state of Virginia on account of the taxes so assessed upon his property as aforesaid for the year 1882, and that on said last-named date on tendered to the defendant, in payment of his said taxes, coupons cut from bonds issued by the state of Virginia, under the provisions of the act of the general assembly of the state of Virginia, approved March 28, 1879, entitled 'An act to provide a plan of settlement of the public debt,' which coupons, together with a small amount of lawful money of the United States, tendered at the same time, amounted exactly to the sum so due by the plaintiff for taxes as aforesaid, and which coupons were due and past maturity, in payment of his said taxes so due as aforesaid. That by the terms of the act of the general assembly under which said coupons were issued, the said coupons are receivable in payment of all taxes due to the state of Virginia, and that each of said coupons bore upon its face the contract of the state of Virginia that it should be received in payment of taxes due to said state. That the defendant refused to receive the said coupons and money in payment of the taxes so due by the plaintiff. That after said cender the said defendant unlawfully entered into and upon the plaintiff's premises and place of business and levied upon and seized the plaintiff's property and carried the same away to sell the same in payment of plaintiff's taxes. That plaintiff was always ready and willing to deliver to the defendant in payment of said taxes, up to the moment when the defendant so levied upon his said property, the said coupons and money, and he many times offered to do so, but the defendant always refused to receive the same. That the plaintiff has the right under the constitution of the United States to pay his said taxes to the said defendant in the said coupons and money, and that this right is secured to him by the constitution of the United States. That when the defendant refused to receive the said coupons and money in payment of the taxes so due as aforesaid by the plaintiff, he did so under color of and by the command of an act of the general assembly of the state of Virginia, approved January 26, 1882, entitled 'An act to provide for the more efficient collection of the revenue, to support government, maintain the public schools, and to pay interest on the public debt,' which act forbids collectors of taxes due to said state to receive in payment thereof anything except gold, silver, United States treasury notes, and national bank currency; and that when he so levied upon the plaintiff's property he did so by virtue of and under the command of the eighteenth section of an act of the general assembly of the state of Virginia, approved April 1, 1879, which act is chapter sixty of the laws published by authority f the general assembly of the state of Virginia for the special session of 1879, and by virtue of and under the command of other statutes enacted by the general assembly of the state of Virginia. That the said two last-mentioned acts of the general assembly of the state of Birginia, and the other mentioned statutes of said state, commanding the defendant to levy so as aforesaid upon the property of the plaintiff, are repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and are therefore void. That in refusing to receive the said coupons and money in payment of said taxes, and in levying on and seizing the plaintiff's property for said taxes, after the plaintiff had tendered the same in payment thereof, the defendant deprived the plaintiff of a right secured to him by the constitution of the United States, under color of statutes enacted by the general assembly of the state of Virginia, to the damage of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 cases
  • Aft v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • October 15, 2020
    ..., J.). Importantly, the federal Contracts Clause has not historically provided a damages remedy. See Carter v. Greenhow , 114 U.S. 317, 322, 5 S. Ct. 928, 29 L. Ed. 202 (1885). Rather, the United States Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff who asserts that a state law violated the Contra......
  • Monroe v. Pape
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1961
    ...The jurisdictional provisions may now be found in 28 U.S.C. § 1343, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343. ---------- 19. Carter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 317, 330, 5 S.Ct. 928, 962, 29 L.Ed. 202, 207; Bowman v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., 115 U.S. 611, 6 S.Ct. 192, 29 L.Ed. 502; Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475, 23 S.C......
  • Golden State Transit Corp v. City of Los Angeles
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1989
    ...L.Ed. 1423 (1939) (opinion of Stone, J.), in the sense of securing to "any person, any individual rights," Carter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 317, 322, 5 S.Ct. 928, 930, 29 L.Ed. 202 (1885). The section thus distinguishes secured rights, privileges, and immunities from those interests merely resu......
  • Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization Gonzalez v. Young
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1979
    ...certain'. That the phrase was used in this sense in the statute now under consideration was recognized in Carter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 317, 322, 5 S.Ct. 928, 930, 931, 29 L.Ed. 202, where it was held as a matter of pleading that the particular cause of action set up in the plaintiff's plead......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Fee Shifting and Sovereign Immunity After Seminole Tribe
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 88, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...of Rights. See Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439, 448-50 (1991) (permitting a Dormant Com-merce Clause claim). But see Carter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 317, 322 (1885) (de-clining to permit a Contracts Clause claim through the § 1983 39. Not all laws passed pursuant to the Spending Clause, or any......
  • 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
    ...declaring the nullity of the attempt to impair its obligation. This is the only right secured to him by that clause of the constitution. 114 U.S. 317, 322 (45.) Currie, supra note 42, at 153-54. (46.) 1 FLOYD R. MECHEM, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF AGENCY, [section][section] 1357, 1406, 1455, 1......
  • WAS BIVENS NECESSARY?
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 96 No. 5, May 2021
    • May 1, 2021
    ...the ground that Contract Clause rights were not rights "secured by the Constitution" within the meaning of that Act. Carter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 317, 321-23 (1885), discussed in Michael G. Collins, "Economic Rights," Implied Constitutional Actions, and the Scope of Section 1983, 77 GEO. L.......

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