Thorington v. City Council of Montgomery
| Decision Date | 06 February 1893 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,080,1,080 |
| Citation | 147 U.S. 490,37 L.Ed. 252,13 S.Ct. 394 |
| Parties | THORINGTON v. CITY COUNCIL OF MONTGOMERY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
H. C. Semple and W. Hallett Phillips, for the motion.
J. M. Chilton, opposed.
The opinion of the supreme court of Alabama in this case is given in the record, and reported in 10 South. Rep. 634, and refers to Winter v. City Council, 79 Ala. 481; Thorington v. City Council, 82 Ala. 591, 2 South. Rep. 513; and Id., 88 Ala. 548, 7 South. Rep. 363. It appears that a decree was rendered in favor of the city of Montgomery and against Mary E. Winter and others by the chancery court at Montgomery in August, 1884, for taxes due for previous years on six lots of land in the city, and a sale directed if the amount were not paid, which decree was affirmed December 10, 1885; that in October, 1885, certain of the lots were ordered to be sold for delinquent taxes for the year 1884; and that in November, 1885, three of the lots were sold under the decree, and bought in in the name of Mrs. Thorington, Mrs. Winter's daughter, and the taxes for 1884, interest, charges, and costs were paid. On January 25, 1886, Mrs. Thorington filed a bill in the chancery court seeking to enjoin the sale of the three lots, with the others, by the city, to satisfy the total sum of unpaid taxes ascertained by the decree. The bill was dismissed, but on appeal the decree was reversed, and, the case having been remanded, the bill was again dismissed. On a second appeal the decree was again reversed on the ground that the effect of the purchase by Mrs. Thorington under the tax sale was to cut off all prior liens for taxes for the years preceding 1884, but it was observed in the opinion that if it were shown that the money with which the lots were purchased was not, in fact or legal effect, Mrs. Thorington's, or that there was collusion or a secret trust for the taxpayer, then the doctrine of estoppel would not apply. The cause having again been heard by the chancery court, the bill was again dismissed, and on the third appeal by Mrs. Thorington the decree was affirmed by the supreme court, to which judgment this writ of error was sued out.
We cannot find that any federal question was raised in the proceedings in the chancery court. The only error assigned in the supreme court was that 'the court below erred in rendering the final decree made by it dismissing appellant's bill, and in overruling objections to testimony.' It is stated in the writ of error that in the cause 'between Sallie G. Thorington, appellant, and the city council of Montgomery, appellee, wherein was drawn in question appellant's right, under article 5 of the amended constitution of the United States, to have the testimony of her, the said Sallie G., which had been taken under a duly-issued commission in that behalf, read in her behalf on the trial of the said cause, and the decision was against her right and claim to be so heard, a manifest error hath happened,' etc.
The fifth amendment operates exclusively in restriction of federal power, and has no application to the states, but in the brief for plaintiff in error it is said that the fourteenth amendment was violated in her case in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Parker Distilling Co.
...32 U. S. 469, 8 L. Ed. 751; Eilenbecker v. District Court, 134 U. S. 34, 10 Sup. Ct. 424, 33 L. Ed. 801; Thorington v. City Council, 147 U. S. 490, 13 Sup. Ct. 394, 37 L. Ed. 252; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S., loc. cit. 174, 20 Sup. Ct. 77, 44 L. Ed. 6. It is finally insisted by counsel f......
-
Banks v. State
... ... State, 168 ... Ala. 33, 53 So. 292, and Robertson v. City of ... Montgomery, 201 Ala. 198 77 So. 724, and which case was ... also ... State of Vt., 144 ... U.S. 323, 12 S.Ct. 693, 36 L.Ed. 450; Thorington v ... Montgomery, 147 U.S. 490, 13 S.Ct. 394, 37 L.Ed. 252; ... ...
-
State v. Parker Distilling Company
...of Congress. Livingston v. Moore, 32 U.S. 469; Eilenbecker v. Court, 134 U.S. 34; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 174; Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U.S. 490. (13) The act does not violate sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and does not attempt to abr......
-
Inland Steel Co. v. Yedinak
...operates exclusively in restriction of federal power, and has no application to the several states. Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U. S. 490, 13 Sup. Ct. 394, 37 L. Ed. 252;Capital City Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238, 22 Sup. Ct. 120, 46 L. Ed. 171. It is contended that these statutes unlawfully......