Hannewinkle v. Georgetown
| Decision Date | 01 December 1872 |
| Citation | 15 Wall. 547,82 U.S. 547,21 L.Ed. 231 |
| Parties | HANNEWINKLE v. GEORGETOWN |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
Hannewinkle filed his bill against the corporation of the city of Georgetown and its collector of taxes, to enjoin them from selling certain real estate for a tax claimed by the corporation under a certain act of Congress, which made part of the city charter. The bill alleged that the corporation attempted to condemn to public use, and open and improve Stoddard Street in that city; that the complainant owned certain premises described on that street; that a part of the premises were condemned to public use, and his damages assessed at $3139; that the same jury which thus assessed his damages, assessed him also for benefits to the residue of his property arising from the same improvements in the sum of $3425, and attempted to make the assessment a lien and charge on the said residue, by and for which the same could be sold. This the bill alleged was without authority of law and countrary to the act of Congress under which the city professed to act. The bill prayed that the defendants might be restrained from selling the property. An answer was put in. The cause was brought to a hearing upon an agreed state of facts, and the bill dismissed with costs. From this decree of dismissal the defendant now appealed to this court.
Mr. Samuel Tyler, for the appellant; Mr. W. A. Cook, contra.
The action in this case cannot be sustained. It has been the settled law of the country for a great many years, that an injunction bill to restrain the collection of a tax, on the sole ground of the illegality of the tax, cannot be maintained. There must be an allegation of fraud; that it creates a cloud upon the title; that there is apprehension of multiplicity of suits, or some cause presenting a case of equity jurisdiction. This was decided as early as the days of Chancellor Kent, in Mooers v. Smedley,1 and has been so held from that time onward. The remedy was held to be at law by writ of certiorari or by action of trespass.
It has long been held, also, that there exists no cloud upon the title which justifies the interference of a court of equity, where the proceedings are void upon their face, that is, the same record which must be introduced to establish the title claimed, will show that there is no title.2
The whole subject has been recently examined in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox Film Corporation v. Trumbull
...was decided as early as the days of Chancellor Kent in Mooers v. Smedley (N. Y.) 6 Johns. Ch. 28. And, as was said in Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 548, 21 L. Ed. 231, it "has been so held from that time onward." And see Union Pac. R. Co. v. Cheyenne, 113 U. S. 516, 525, 5 S. Ct. 601,......
-
United States v. American Bell Tel. Co.
...... U.S. v. Railroad, 98 U.S. 569; Fontain v. Ravenel, 17. How. 369; People v. Ingersoll, 58 N.Y. 1; City. of Georgetown v. Coal Co., 12 Pet. 78; Irwin v. Dixion, 9 How. 27; Miller v. Kerr, 7 Wheat. 1;. Attorney General v. Detroit, 26 Mich. 269;. Attorney ... because it is void, if the invalidity can be shown in any. suit brought to enforce it, ( Insurance Co. v. Bailey, 13 Wall. 616; Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 547; Phelps v. Harris, 101. U.S. 375; Hapgood v. Hewitt, 119 U.S. 226, 7 S.Ct. 193,) except to avoid a multiplicity ......
-
Rieder v. Rogan
...with the decisions of this court as well as of many state courts. Dows v. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108 109 20 L. Ed. 65; Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 547 549 21 L. Ed. 231; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, 612, 613 23 L. Ed. 663, and cases there cited." (Italics added.) See, also, Mi......
-
Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle
......65; Dows v. City of Chicago, 11 Wall. (78 U. S.) 108, 20 L. Ed. 65; Grand Chute v. Winegar, 15 Wall. (82 U. S.) 373, 21 L. Ed. 174; Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. (82 U. S.) 547, 21 L. Ed. 231; State R. R. Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, 23 L. Ed. 663; Shelton v. Platt, 139 U. S. 591, 11 S. Ct. ......