Russell v. Stansell
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Citation | 105 U.S. 303,26 L.Ed. 989 |
| Parties | RUSSELL v. STANSELL |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
MOTION to dismiss an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Mississippi.
Mr. H. T. Ellett in support of the motion.
There was no opposing counsel.
Stansell, the appellee, obtained a decree in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Mississippi, in June, 1879, against the Levee Board of Mississippi, District No. 1, for $71,623.67. This decree being unsatisfied, he instituted summary proceedings in the same court, under the provisions of the statute creating the levee board, to obtain an assessment and collection of the charge which was imposed on the lands in the district for its payment. On the 7th of February, 1880, the court entered an order which resulted in an assessment by commissioners appointed for that purpose. In this order it was provided that any person conceiving himself aggrieved by the action of the commissioners might, by petition to the court, present his grievance and obtain such redress as he should fairly be entitled to. On the 1st of February, 1881, D. M. Russell, W. H. Stovall, and H. P. Reid appeared, and as individuals and members of an executive committee appointed at a mass meeting of the several owners of the lands charged with the payment of the assessment, asked an injunction against the collection of the assessment that had been made, setting forth in their petition why the proceedings were illegal and unjust. The amount with which the petitioners, as individuals, were severally charged was as follows: Russell, $7.58; Stovall, $205.14; and Reid, who was assessed only as an agent or attorney, $229.29. No single individual among all the parties represented by the committee could in any event be made liable for an amount exceeding $2,500. On the presentation of the petition the court granted a preliminary injunction, but on final hearing that injunction was dissolved and the petition dismissed. From the last order this appeal was taken, which the appellee now moves to dismiss because the amount in dispute between him and any one of the several persons charged with the payment of the assessment is less than $5,000.
While the appellants, and those whom they have been chosen to represent, are all interested in the question on which their liability to the appellee depends, they are separately charged with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zahn v. International Paper Company 8212 888
...341, 355, 3 S.Ct. 252, 262, 27 L.Ed. 956 (1883). Cf. Clay v. Field, 138 U.S. 464, 11 S.Ct. 419, 34 L.Ed. 1044 (1891); Russell v. Stansell, 105 U.S. 303, 26 L.Ed. 989 (1882); Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208, 18 L.Ed. 595 (1867); Stratton v. Jarvis, 8 Pet. 4, 8 L.Ed. 846 (1834); Oliver v. Ale......
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Benson Hardware Co.
... ... Wadsworth, 115 U.S. 264, 6 ... S.Ct. 140, 29 L.Ed. 377; Ballard Paving Co. v ... Mulford, 100 U.S. 147, 25 L.Ed. 591; Russell v ... Stansell, 105 U.S. 303, 26 L.Ed. 989 ... In the ... case of National Surety Co. v. U.S. (C. C. A.) 228 ... F. 577, L. R. A ... ...
-
Fuller v. Volk
...The question, therefore, is whether a taxpayer's suit is one in which the claims of the class may be aggregated.8 In Russell v. Stansell, 105 U.S. 303, 26 L.Ed. 989 (1881), a group of landowners sought to enjoin a special assessment tax. They appointed several of their group to represent th......
-
Dewar v. Brooks
...v. Latimer (C.C.Mich.1880) 2 F. 842; Schulenberg-Boeckler Lumber Co. v. Town of Hayward (C.C.Wis.1884) 20 F. 422. In Russell v. Stansell (1881) 105 U. S. 303, 26 L.Ed. 989, the Supreme Court declined to entertain jurisdiction of a direct appeal to it in a suit brought to prevent the levy of......