Williams v. Hagood
| Decision Date | 01 October 1878 |
| Citation | 25 L.Ed. 51,98 U.S. 72 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. HAGOOD |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina.
The facts are stated in the opinion of court.
Mr. Denis McMahon for the appellant.
Mr. Le Roy F. Youmans, Attorney-General of South Carolina, contra.
This is a bill in equity against the comptroller-general of the State of South Carolina, the county treasurer of Charleston County, in said State, and the assignees in bankruptcy of the Blue Ridge Railroad Company, in which the relief sought is an injunction commanding the comptroller 'to cease from refusing to levy a tax for retiring' certain certificates of the State indebtedness, and commanding the county treasurer 'to cease from refusing to receive the same for taxes and dues to the State, except to pay interest on the public debt.'
The facts of the case, so far as they are exhibited by the bill, and so far as they are material for present consideration, are as follows:——
By an act of the legislature of the State, enacted March 2, 1872, reciting in its preamble that in pursuance of a former act the guaranty of the faith and credit of the State had been indorsed on four millions of dollars of bonds issued by the Blue Ridge Railroad Company, and that it was desired to recover and destroy the bonds thus issued and relieve the State from the liability incurred by its indorsement and guaranty thereof, the State treasurer was directed, with the written consent of the railroad company, to require the financial agent of the State to deliver to him for cancellation all the bonds of the company indorsed and guaranteed as aforesaid, then in the agent's possession and held by him as collateral securitv for advances.
The second section of the act enacted that upon the surrender by the company to the State treasury of the balance of the said four millions of dollars of bonds thus guaranteed by the State, the State treasurer should be authorized and required to deliver to the president of the railroad company treasury certificates of indebtedness (styled revenue-bond scrip) to the amount of $1,800,000, executed in a manner directed afterwards in the act. And if the company should not be able to deliver all of said bonds at one time, the act required the treasurer to deliver to the said president such amount of the treasury certificates as should be proportioned to the amount of bonds delivered.
The third section made it the duty of the State treasurer, in order to carry out the purposes of the act, to have treasury certificates of indebtedness prepared, to be known and designated as 'revenue-bond scrip of the State of South Carolina,' which should be signed by the treasurer, and which should express that the sum mentioned therein is due by the State of South Carolina to the bearer thereof, and that the same would be received in payment of taxes and all other dues to the State, except special tax levied to pay interest on the public debt.
The fourth section pledged the faith and funds of the State for the ultimate redemption of the scrip, and required county treasurers to receive it in payment of all taxes levied by the State, except in payment of special tax levied to pay interest on the public debt. It also required the State treasurer and all other public officers to receive the same in payment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Porterie v. Walmsley
... ... 415, 422, 24 S.Ct. 706, ... 709, 48 L.Ed. 1046; Walsh v. Columbus, etc., R. Co., ... 176 U.S. 469, 479, 20 S.Ct. 393, 44 L.Ed. 548; Williams ... [162 So. 839] ... Eggleston, 170 U.S. 304, 309, 18 S.Ct. 617, 42 L.Ed. 1047; ... Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U.S. 701, 4 S.Ct ... 3, 28 L.Ed. 569; Williams v. Hagood, 98 U.S. 72, ... 74, 25 L.Ed. 51 ... As we ... do not find any limitation in the Constitution of Louisiana ... which would have ... ...
-
Lewis Pub. Co. v. Wyman
... ... Marye v. Parsons, 114 U.S. 325, ... 330, 5 Sup.Ct. 932, 29 L.Ed. 205; In re Baez, 177 ... U.S. 378, 20 Sup.Ct. 673, 44 L.Ed. 813; Williams v ... Hagood, 98 U.S. 72, 75, 25 L.Ed. 51; Hunnewell v ... Cass County, 22 Wall. 464, 478, 22 L.Ed. 752; Meyer ... v. Pritchard, 131 U.S. ccix, ... ...
-
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Emp. v. Dawkins
...Lumber Co., 201 Ala. 150, 77 So. 574; Foster v. Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co., 146, U.S. 88, 13 S.Ct. 28, 36 L.Ed. 899; Williams v. Hagood, 98 U.S. 72, 25 L.Ed. 51; 19 Am.Jur. 50, Equity, § 21; 30 C.J.S. Equity § 13, p. 333. To be entitled to claim equitable relief, the complainant must show......
-
Shanklin v. Boyce
...Fla. 478; Kearney v. Andrews, 10 N.J.Eq. 70; Parker v. Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton & Woolen Co., 2 Black 545, 17 L.Ed. 333; Williams v. Hagood, 8 Otto, 72, 25 L.Ed. 51; Stille v. Hess, 112 Mich. 678, 71 N.W. 513. If want of notice rendered the proceedings void, or the form of the sale rendere......