Venable v. Richards
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Citation | 105 U.S. 636,26 L.Ed. 1196 |
| Parties | VENABLE v. RICHARDS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. William P. Burwell for the plaintiffs in error.
The Solicitor-General for the defendant in error.
Section 643 of the Revised Statutes provides, among other things, for the removal into the Circuit Court for the proper district, upon petition by defendant to that court, without bond, and without reference to the amount in dispute, of any civil suit, or criminal prosecution, 'commenced in any State court against an officer appointed under or acting by authority of any revenue law of the United States, now or hereafter enacted, or against any person acting under or by authority of any such officer, on account of any act done under color of his office, or of any such law, or on account of any right, title, or authority claimed by such officer or other person under such law; or is commenced against any person holding property or estate by title derived from any such officer, and affects the validity of such revenue law.' Similar provisions are to be found in sect. 67 of the act of July 13, 1866, c. 184, and in sect. 3 of the act of March 2, 1833, c. 57. 14 State. 171; 4 id. 633.
The present suit—commenced in one of the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and thence removed, in the mode prescribed by the above section, into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia—is clearly embraced by the terms of that section. Its object is to recover from the defendant, Richards, certain sums, aggregating more than $5,000, which, it is alleged, he, as a collector of internal revenue, illegally exacted and collected, as taxes, upon snuff manufactured by the plaintiffs, Venable & Son. The court below denied a motion to remand the cause to the State court. Its action, in that particular, is now assailed, upon the assumption that the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, at least as to all cases removable under it, superseded sect. 643 of the Revised Statutes. The present suit, is, undoubtedly, one arising under the laws of the United States, and as the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of $500, it could, consistently with the language of that act, have been removed before or at the term at which it could have been first tried, upon petition filed in the State court, accompanied by the required bond. But it does not follow that a removal of suits, described in sect. 643 of the Revised Statutes could not be effected in some other mode than that defined in the act. The latter, neither in terms nor by necessary implication, abrogates previous laws providing for the removal of causes from the State courts. It repeals only such acts and parts of acts as are in conflict therewith. We fail to perceive any necessary conflict between the two enactments. Sect. 643 provides for the removal of both civil and criminal prosecutions of a limited class, arising under the laws of the United States, without regard to the amount involved, while the act of 1875 provides for the removal of all civil suits arising under the laws of the United States, where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of $500. Certainly so much of the section as relates to criminal prosecutions is unaffected by the act. And the same thing may be said of civil suits, of the class described in the section, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, is less than the sum of $500. But looking at the policy which underlies all the legislation providing for the removal from State courts of civil suits against officers, appointed under, or acting by authority of, any revenue law of the United States, we cannot suppose that Congress intended to deny to such officers, when sued for amounts exceeding $500, exclusive of costs, the benefit of the liberal provisions which are confessedly accorded to them when sued for less than that sum. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matarazzo v. Hustis
... ... De ... Hart (C.C.) 119 F. 626. See, also, City of ... Philadelphia v. Collector, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 720, 18 ... L.Ed. 614, and Venable v. Richards, 105 U.S. 636, 26 ... L.Ed. 1196; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 21 ... Sup.Ct. 770, 45 L.Ed. 1088. Prior to the amendment of ... ...
-
Spock v. David
...without regard to amount in controversy. Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 89 S.Ct. 1813, 23 L.Ed.2d 396 (1969); Venable v. Richards, 105 U.S. 636, 26 L.Ed. 1196 (1882). But if he did not elect to remove, the suit could proceed in the state court. The availability of that remedy would pro......
-
Miller v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co.
... ... legislation unmistakeably require ... Murdock ... v. Memphis, 20 Wall, 590, 22 L.Ed. 429; Venable v ... Richards, 105 U.S. 638, 26 L.Ed. 1196; United States ... v. Healey, 160, U.S. 136, 40 L.Ed. 369; Coulter v ... Robertson, 24 Miss. 278 ... ...
-
Hood v. United States, 15267.
...the removal statute invokes the jurisdiction of the federal court." Wells v. Long, 9 Cir., 162 F.2d 842, 844. See also Venable v. Richards, 105 U.S. 636, 26 L.Ed. 1196. 7 United States Constitution, art. III, § 2, cl. 8 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1442, 1442a. 9 The reasoning of a District Court on the ......