David Yost v. Dallas County

Decision Date18 January 1915
Docket NumberNo. 604,604
PartiesDAVID YOST v. DALLAS COUNTY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Harry J. Cantwell for David Yost.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 50-54 intentionally omitted] Messrs. John S. Haymes and J. W. Miller for Dallas County.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes here upon a certificate from the circuit court of appeals. It is a suit in equity and the bill was dismissed by the district court. The facts alleged are, in short, as follows: A statute of Missouri incorporated the Laclede & Fort Scott Railroad, and authorized counties to invest in its stock and bonds, and to issue county bonds in order to pay for the same. The appellee did so, afterwards defaulted upon its bonds, and the appellant recovered judgment upon them in the same district court for over a million dollars. Under the laws in force when the bonds were issued it was the duty of the county officers to levy and collect annually a tax of 30 per cent of the amount of the bonds issued, but this duty never has been performed, and the county officers evade service of writs of mandamus, or, if served, refuse to obey the writs. There is no other mode of obtaining satisfaction, and the duties of levying and assessing the tax are only those of apportioning the tax among the taxable inhabitants on the basis of the last previous assessment which has been made, and of collecting it. The prayer is for the appointment of a commissioner to levy, to collect, and pay over the tax according to the Missouri law. The questions certified are:

'1. Has a district court of the United States, sitting as a court of equity, jurisdiction of such a cause?

'2. When a judgment has been recovered on the law side of a district court of the United States of competent jurisdiction, against a county of the state of Missouri, on its bonds issued by authority of law, and the laws of that state in force at the time the bonds were issued authorized such county to levy and collect taxes to pay such bonds, and the county has no funds in its treasury which can be applied to the payment of the judgment, and its property is, under the laws of the state, exempt from seizure and sale under execution; when the officers charged by the laws of the state with the duty to levy and collect taxes to pay such judgment refuse so to do, when the court in which such judgment was rendered has a number of times issued writs of mandamus commanding such officials to levy the taxes which they were authorized and which it was their duty to levy to pay such judgment, but these officials have, when possible, evaded service of these writs, and when served have wilfully and defiantly refused to obey the writs of mandamus, and the fact has been conclusively demonstrated by the proceedings at law that the plaintiff is utterly remediless at law by mandamus or otherwise for the failure of the county to pay, and the refusal of the officers of the county to discharge their duty to levy and collect taxes, and therewith to pay his judgment; and when the last previous assessment was made which, by the statute in force at the time the contract was made, was authorized and made the basis of the levy of the amount to which the plaintiff is now entitled under his judgment and writs of mandamus, so that no act of discretion is required to levy and collect it, but only the clerical or ministerial acts of apportioning the amount among the assessed values of the taxables specified in the last previous assessment, placing it on the tax books and collecting it of the persons and property liable therefor, has the Federal court of the district in which the judgment was rendered, and the futile writs of mandamus issued, and, when possible, served, the jurisdiction and authority in equity to appoint a commissioner, receiver, or other officer to make the apportionment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • City of Boston v. McGovern
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 25 Julio 1923
    ... ... Osborne, 135 U.S. 492, ... 499, 10 Sup.Ct. 1012, 34 L.Ed. 260; Yost v. Dallas ... County, 236 U.S. 50, 56, 35 Sup.Ct. 235, 59 L.Ed. 460 ... ...
  • Johnson v. Riverland Levee Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 12 Marzo 1941
    ...93 U.S. 258, 23 L.Ed. 893; Preston v. Sturgis Milling Co., 6 Cir., 183 F. 1, 32 L.R.A.,N.S., 1020. In Yost v. Dallas County, 236 U.S. 50, 35 S.Ct. 235, 236, 59 L.Ed. 460, a judgment had been obtained against the county on bonds issued by it, and suit was brought in the federal court praying......
  • City of Pueblo v. Grand Carniolian Slovenian Catholic Union of U.S. of America
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 19 Diciembre 1960
    ...County, 41 N.M. 658, 73 P.2d 333, 113 A.L.R. 746; Thompson v. Allen, 115 U.S. 550, 6 S.Ct. 140, 29 L.Ed. 472; and Yost v. Dallas County, 236 U.S. 50, 35 S.Ct. 235, 59 L.Ed. 460. On the date the opinion of this court was announced in Case No. 17059, the City Council of Pueblo adopted Resolut......
  • Meyer v. City of Eufaula, Okl.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 16 Diciembre 1942
    ...States v. County of Macon, 99 U.S. 582, 25 L.Ed. 331; Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U.S. 472, 515, 26 L.Ed. 197; Yost v. Dallas County, 236 U.S. 50, 35 S.Ct. 235, 59 L.Ed 460; Johnson v. Riverland Levee District, 8 Cir., 117 F.2d 711, 134 A.L.R. 326; Rorick v. United States Sugar Corporation, ......
  • 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