midpage

Pleasants v. GreenhowPleasants v. Greenhow

Supreme Court of the United States
May 4, 1885
941
Reporters:
, , ,
Before:
Matthews
Me. Justice MATTHEWs

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a bill in equity filed by the, appellant, a citizen of Virginia, praying that the defendant, Greenhow, Treasurer of *324 the City of ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍Richmond, may be perpetually enjoined from taking steps, by distraint of the complainant’s property, to collect certain taxes claimed by the defendant to be due to the State of Virginia, amounting to $36.25, but for which the bill avers the complainant tendered in payment the exact amount thereof, for a part, coupons cut from bonds issued by the State ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍under the act of March 30, 1871, and part in money.

On demurrer to the bill, it was dismissed by the Circuit Court for want of jurisdiction, the amount in controversy, being less than’ $500, and the complainant has brought this appeal.

• It is sought to maintain the jurisdiction in this case on the ground that the suit is authorized ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍by Rev. Stat. § 1979, jurisdiction to entertain which is conferred by the sixteenth clause of Rev. Stat. § 629.

The case comes within the decision just’ rendered. in Carter v. Greenhow, and is governed by it. It is not, in our opinion, ■such a suit as is contemplated by the. sections of the Revised Statutes referred to.

As the sum or value in ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍controversy does, not exceed $500, the suit cannot be maintained as- a cáse arising under the Constitution and laws of the.TTnited States, provided.for in the act of March 3, 1875, ch. 137s 18 Stat. 470. The bill was, therefore, rightly, dismissed.

■The decree of the. Circuit Cowrt is accordingly affirmed.

MR. Justice Bradley, with whom were the Chief Justice, ,. ■ Mr. Justice ‍​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍Miller, and Mr. Justice Gray, concurred in the judgment, but rested their concurrence upon the grounds- • stated in their opinion, post, page 330, after the opinion of the court in Marye v. ParsoNS.

Case Details

Case Name: Pleasants v. Greenhow
Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States
Date Published: May 4, 1885
Citations: 114 U.S. 323; 5 S. Ct. 931; 29 L. Ed. 204; 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1764; 941
Docket Number: 941
Court Abbreviation: U.S.
Log In