Marye v. Parsons
Decision Date | 20 April 1885 |
Citation | 29 L.Ed. 205,114 U.S. 325,5 S.Ct. 932 |
Parties | MARYE, Auditor, etc., and others v. PARSONS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
F. S. Blair, Atty. Gen., A. H. Garland, R. T. Merrick, and Walter R. Staples, for appellants.
Richard L. Maury, Wager Swayne, and D. H. Chamberlain, for appellee.
The appellee, who was complainant below, a citizen of New York, filed his bill in equity, in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Virginia, against Mortion Marye, described as 'Auditor of the Commonwealth of Virginia;' Samuel C. Greenhow, treasurer of the city of Richmond; A. L. Hill, treasurer of the city of Norfolk, and V. G. Dunnington, treasurer of the city of Lynchburg; R. B. Munford, commissioner of revenue for the city of Richmond; Charles W. Price, for the city of Lynchburg, and Charles D. Langley, for the city of Norfolk; all citizens of Virginia.
The complainant avers in his bill that he is the owner of overdue coupons to the amount of $28,010, cut from bonds of the state of Virginia, issued under the act of March 30, 1871, which coupons are receivable, by the terms of that act, in payment, at and after maturity, for all taxes, debts, and demands due the state. A list of these coupons, described by the numbers and amounts of the bonds, is exhibited with the bill. He claims that these coupons constitute a contract with the state, by which it agreed to pay the amount of each to the holder at maturity; and, second, in case of default, that the holder should have the right to assign or transfer the same to any tax-payer or other debtor of the state, with the quality of being received for taxes and other demands due the state, and with the guaranty that the state would receive them specifically in payment pro tanto for any such taxes and demands, and that they should be accepted by any of her tax collectors from any of her tax-payers or debtors in discharge and payment of such taxes or other dues.
The defendants to the bill, it is alleged, are officers of the state, charged severally with the collection of certain taxes and license fees and other dues to the state; and it is charged that, in pursuance of certain statutes passed since the act of March 30, 1871, and the issue of the bonds and coupons under it, they are orbidden to receive these and similar coupons in payment of taxes and other dues to the state, which statutes, it is averred, impair the obligation of the contract between the state and the holder of its coupons, and are accordingly in violation of the constitution of the United States, and are null and void; but that, nevertheless, the defendants, as officers of the state, as is publicy known, habitually refuse to accept coupons when tendered by tax-payers, in payment of taxes and other dues to the state, with the collection of which they are severally charged, and the general assembly of Virginia has also passed statutes repealing all laws which provided any remedy for the enforcement of the right to have them so received. The bill then proceeds as follows:
The prayer for relief is as follows:
There is also a prayer for general relief. There was a final decree on bill, answer, replication, and proofs, granting the injunction as prayed for, and the defendants appealed. This bill is without precedent, and should have been dismissed. It is a clear case, as stated, of damnum absque injuria. So far as the contract with the complainant was, that the state should pay to him his coupons at maturity, there is, no doubt, a breach; but he asks no relief as to that, for there is no remedy by suit to compel the state to pay its debts. So far as the contract was to receive the coupons of the complainant in payment of taxes and other dues to the state, there is no breach, for he does not allege that any of them have been tendered by any tax-payer or debtor to the state in payment of taxes or other dues; nor that there has been a refusal on the part of any tax collector, or other officer of the state charged with the collection and receipt of taxes and dues to the state, to receive them in payment therefor. Personally the complainant has no right to offer them for such purpose, for he owes no taxes or other debt to the state. There is nothing shown in the bill by which he is prevented from transferring them to others who would have the legal right to use them in that way, except that, being discredited for such uses by the previous refusals of the officers of the state to receive other but similar coupons, the complainant can find on one willing to purchase them from him at a reasonable price for such purposes. This damage is not actionable, because it is not a direct and legal consequence of a breach of the contract, and is not distinguishable from the damage any creditor might suffer from the known inability or unwillingness of his debtors to perform their obligations. Such discredit might, and often does, result in the bankruptcy and financial ruin of the creditor, but no action lies to recover damages for the consequential loss, which the law does not connect with the default, as cause and effect. To enable the complainant to avail himself of the benefit of his contract with the state, to receive his coupons in payment of taxes, he must first assign them to some one who has taxes to pay, as he has not; but when he does so, by the assignment, he has lost his interest in the contract and his right to demand its performance, all right to which he has transferred with the coupons. It is only when in the hands of tax-payers or other debtors that the coupons are receivable in payment of taxes and debts dut to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. American Bell Tel. Co.
...v. Stewart, 93 U.S. 155, 161; Orton v. Smith, 18 How. 263. The bill must show some interest to be benetited by the decree. Marye v. Parsons, 114 U.S. 328, 5 S.Ct. 932; U.S. v. Railroad Co., 98 U.S. 589; U.S. Minor, 114 U.S. 244, 5 S.Ct. 836. The United States granted away by these letters n......
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Bosworth
...... the coupons which he still had. He had no right to bring the. [209 F. 395] . suit, as had been held in the previous case of Marye v. Parsons, 114 U.S. 325, 5 Sup.Ct. 932, 962, 29 L.Ed. 205. But, this apart, the Attorney General and other prosecuting. officers had the right ......
-
Alabama State Federation of Labor, Local Union No 103, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Adory
...by it can draw in question its constitutional validity in a declaratory judgment proceeding as in any other. Marye v. Parsons, 114 U.S. 325, 5 S.Ct. 932, 962, 29 L.Ed. 205; Tyler v. Judges, 179 U.S. 405, 21 S.Ct. 206, 45 L.Ed. 252; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U.S. 51, 60, 61, 23 S.Ct. 20, 24, 47 L......
-
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment
..."personally would benefit in a tangible way from the court's intervention." Warth, 422 U. S., at 508. For example, in Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325, 328-329 (1885), we held that a bill in equity should have been dismissed because it was a clear case of "damnum absque injuriâ." Although th......
-
Remedies and Respect: Rethinking the Role of Federal Judicial Relief
...v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 (1968) (quoting CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, HANDBOOK OF THE LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS 34 (1963)). 429. Marye v. Parsons, 114 U.S. 325, 330 (1885). For an argument that “advisory opinions should not be viewed as constitutionally forbidden,” see Jonathan R. Siegel, A Theory of ......
-
Pleading sovereign immunity: the doctrinal underpinnings of Hans v. Louisiana and Ex Parte Young.
...(granting action for detinue after an officer, who refused to accept tax coupons, seized the plaintiff's desk). (229.) Marye v. Parsons, 114 U.S. 325 (1885) (denying that a citizen of New York had a cause of action against a Virginia tax officer because he did not have to pay Virginia taxes......