Smith v. Greenhow
| Decision Date | 07 January 1884 |
| Citation | 3 S.Ct. 421,109 U.S. 669,27 L.Ed. 1080 |
| Parties | SMITH v. GREENHOW |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Wm. L. Royall and Wager Swayne, for plaintiff in error.
F. S. Blair, for defendant, in error.
A writ of summons was issued out of the circuit court of the city of Richmond by the plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, against the defendant, on May 2, 1883, service of which was acknowledged by the defendant on the same day. The writ was returnable on the first Monday in May, which was the seventh day On that day the plaintiff filed his declaration in trespass, vi et armis, for entering upon the premises of the plaintiff, and taking and carrying away his personal property, consisting of one table and one bookcase, with the books therein, of the value of $100, and for remaining on the premises of the plaintiff for a long term, whereby the plaintiff was greatly disturbed and annoyed in the peaceable possession thereof, being his place of business, and hindered and prevented from carrying on and transacting his lawful and necessary affairs and business, and for other wrongs and injuries, laying the damage therefor at $6,000. To this declaration the defendant filed a plea in bar, justifying the alleged trespasses, by setting out that the defendant, as treasurer of the city of Richmond, levied upon the personal property mentioned, in order to sell the same, in satisfaction of certain taxes then due and owing from the plaintiff to the state of Virginia, as by law it was his duty to do. To this plea the plaintiff filed a replication, alleging a previous tender, in payment of said taxes, of coupons cut from bonds issued by the state of Virginia under the authority of an act of the general assembly of that state, approved March 28, 1879, said coupons being by that law receivable in payment of said taxes; which, however, the defendant refused to accept in payment thereof. To this replication the defendant rejoined that, by the act of the general assembly of the state of Virginia of January 26, 1882, he was forbidden to receive the said coupons tendered in payment of said taxes; and to that rejoinder the plaintiff demurred. All these various pleadings, including the declaration, were filed on the same day, and on that day the plaintiff al o filed his petition praying for the removal of the suit to the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Virginia, on the ground that it arose under the constitution of the United States, which was accordingly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co
...8 Cir., 84 F.2d 930. 17 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Rose, D.C., 294 F. 122; Hood v. Bell, 4 Cir., 84 F.2d 136. 18 In Smith v. Greenhow, 109 U.S. 669, 3 S.Ct. 421, 422, 27 L.Ed. 1080, a case of trespass for entering plaintiff's premises and carrying away goods of the value of $100, interfering w......
-
Shaffer v. Coty, Inc.
...faith. Globe Refining Co. v. Landa Cotton Oil Co., 1903, 190 U.S. 540, 546-547, 23 S.Ct. 754, 47 L.Ed. 1171; Smith v. Greenhow, 1884, 109 U.S. 669, 671, 3 S.Ct. 421, 27 L.Ed. 1080. Of course, "where the law gives the rule, the legal cause of action, and not plaintiff's demand, must be regar......
-
Simon v. House
... ... 565. In suits sounding in damages, ... the damages claimed give the jurisdiction. Barry v ... Edmunds, 116 U.S. 550, 6 S.Ct. 501; Smith v ... Greenhow, 109 U.S. 669, 3 S.Ct. 421; Dwyer v ... Bassett, 63 Tex. 276. In a case impeaching the right to ... an office, it is held that ... ...
-
Home Life Ins. Co. v. Sipp, 3351.
...it within the statute. Kaufman v. Rheinstrom (C. C.) 188 F. 544; Lazensky v. Supreme Lodge (C. C.) 32 F. 417; Smith v. Greenhow, 3 S. Ct. 421, 109 U. S. 671, 27 L. Ed. 1080; Gilson v. Mutual Reserve (C. C.) 129 F. 1003; Home v. Ray, 69 F. 697; Greene v. Kortrecht, 81 F. 241, 26 C. C. A. 381......