Southern Ry. Co. v. Query

QUERY RY. SOUTHERN CO. v. F.(aa> ai 33» QUERY al., ©=>284(2) еt RY. CO. v. 7. Constitutional to law —Failure give opportunity Commission. Tax be- South Carolina notice be heard to assessing fore state income de- tax held not process (Income nial of due South Carolina. E. D. Tax Act S. C. District Court. March 1927. opportunity Failure to to notice be Rehearing June 1927. heard On Income taxes were assessed under (32 Large, 896), p. Tax Act at O. St. taking property held not to constitute without of No. 410. process of law. of railroad Courts 1. ©=>314—Domestication ©=>608(12) Showing 8. Taxation that assess- corporation deprive to in- — not of ment of state income tax creates cloud on jurisdiction ground courts’ on voke federal ground injunctive relief, title constitutes diversity citizenship. of of (Income remedy absent Tax Acts corporation un- Domestication of railroad 1922, 1926). deprive to law did not der state Railroad, seeking recover to additional jurisdiction ground federal courts invoke on by state, come tax assessed held to have shown diversity citizenship. ground equity powers for exercise of enjoin tax, provided federal court to is no ©=>299(1)— jurisdic- Courts Federal court’s 2. adequate remedy law, at that the action according aver- tion must be determined to tax commission would create cloud ments of bill. provisions the title under Tax Income Act jurisdiction Question (32 Large, p. of federal court’s 896), S. O. 1922 St. at In- Constitution of arises under (35 p. Large, come Act S. 1926 on at O. St. according must 1) authorizing States determined to levy United property within state averments the bill. lions became thereon. ©=>608(12) 9. Taxation court will Application —Federal Courts interlocu- 3. ©=>101— enjoin creating not cloud collection of state tax injunction involving tory validity of admin- title, by if cloud can be removed order of state tax commission re- istrative protest. hearing judges Code, quires (Judicial before 3 If 13, 1925, railroad can remove cloud on title oc- as amended Feb>. § I § 386]). casioned payment assessment of state income tax [28 USCA § protest, of taxes on there exists an interlocutory injunction Application for in adequate remedy will, law, injunction at administrative order of state tax case where equity. issue federal court commission is attacked as unconstitutional judges three in ac- should heard before ©=>262(2)— Remedy law, Courts Code, § cordance Judicial amended courts, preclude available in federal does not (28 Act Feb. § § USCA jurisdiction equity federal (Act C.S. March 1243]). [Comp. §St. Large, p. 1017]). 1922 [32 St. at Remedy 22, re- authorized Act S. C. March ©=>262(2) equity 4. Courts court of —Federal (32 Large, 1017), p. compel 1922 fund of St. at to enjoin may not collection tax of state if there by mandamus, income state not be- at law. other courts, available in federal is not such injunction by In order to warrant federal adequate remedy precludes at law as federal equity against tax, court of cient it is not suffi- jurisdiction equity. illegal to or unconstitu- show that tax appear tional, rem- but must that there is no Courts courts ©=>265—Federal not is- edy by ordinary processes or that case original proceeding. sue mandamus as an recognized ju- equity falls risprudence. under some head power Federal courts have no to issue writ original proceeding. mandamus as ©=>262(2) Remedy 5. Courts de- ©=>262(2) Remedy by proceedings 12. Courts — — jurisdiction equity enjoin feat federal “inadequate” unknown in federal courts is tax, complete. must be jurisdiction equity. affects federal prevent equity Remedy order preclude juris- a court of in order to assuming jurisdiction federal courts from equity enjoin in a diction of federal lection court col- ease, remedy taxes, at law must plain, full, of state must be courts, and, machinery and, pro- complete, federal where doubtful, where at law is creating taxpayer speculate vided need not unknown as to what the de- inadequatе. be, federal cision of of law will whether state federal, injunction. entitled ©=>365(1) 13. Courts decisions —State equity jurisdiction cannot define of federal ©=>611(9) 6. Taxation held to have —Railroad court. prima applica- made sufficient facie case on Decisions of state ‍‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‍Court cannot interlocutory injunction against col- define of federal court. lection of state income tax. ©=>371(6) Right railroad, suing 14. Courts Interstate state law to recover addi- — illegal tional taxes income tax assessed recover enforced in held prima jurisdictional illegality made a case elements facie as to exist. assessments, provided Right given by other essentials nec- state law to recover essary interlocutory paid protest by ordinary were shown. to state under REPORTER, 2d SERIES Equity juris- Equity in action can be enforced 22'. at law is one which will assume <§=43— jurisdic- remedy federal federal tion are is court elements of diction where at law doubtful. present.' remedy doubtful, equi- Wherever is jurisdiction. ty will assume <@=¿65 conclusively 15. Evidence are —Persons presumed to know lav/. <@=262(3) 23. Courts of South Car- —Members presumed person- conclusively tax olina commission cannot be sued Persons are to know ally complaint illegally as to recover assessed so taxes cannot be made because defeating person legal rights remedy law federal to constitute at of until short- not know jurisdiction ly equity (Income in Tax Act S. C. suit. institution of 1926, § may <§=281 16. Courts court enter- —Federal 32§ In view of Income Tax Act S. tain jurisdictional in state if ether action authorized expressly providing (35 Large, 22), p. St. at present. are elements illegally recovery suit for taxes assessed of against pro- commission, of is no of action and If creates cause state narty against action tax commission of members of enforce cause action vides that to personally dividually- bring would constitute in state of law at remedy adequate general jurisdiction, sufficient defeat law to federal District Court at jurisdiction equity injunc- requisites grant federal entertain such action if other of fed- jurisdiction present. eral relief. tive <§=262(2) Remedy recovery 17. Courts for of — Equity. Suit tbe Southern Rail- illegal taxes, interest, providing not for against Query way Company W. G. and oth- complete remedy affecting not at law as ers, constituting members of and injunctive relief. appli- Carolina Tax Commission. On recovery remedy illegally as- for of taxes A sessed, provide for reasonable interlocutory injunction. In- for which does not cation detention, its interest time of amount of terlocutory granted. remedy complete would to at not equity Hyde, and John B. of jurisdiction Prince both grant defeat federal injunctive relief. Washington, C., Tompkins, F. D. G. of Co- lumbia, C., Barnwell, B. Nath of Rehearing. On Charleston, C., plaintiff. authorizing <§=262(2) Courts law 18. —State Lyon, Columbia, C., Fraser J. J. against suit illegal defeating state in state court to recover Daniel, Atty. Gen., M. of South provide law taxes does not at jurisdiction equity (In- federal Atty. Page, Gen., Cordie Asst. 1926, 32). come § Tax Act S. C. Carolina, for defendants. Remedy provided by Income Tax S. G. PARKER, Judge, Before Circuit p. 22), (35 Large, 1926, of such St. (cid:127)§ assessed, illegally provide held not to COCHRAN, WATKINS ERNEST F. taxes adequate remedy law as defeated fed- Judges. District equity, eral there- against state, con- suit was a pleas COCHRAN, Judge. F. fined to the court of common ERNEST District federal court. plaintiff brought against The this suit <§=303(2) compel enjoin to South Carolina tax commission to Courts state —Suit illegally against repay taxes is collected suit additional income tax as- collection state. against plain- sessed the commission compel perform obliga- Suit to state to its years tiff inclusive. A repay, treasury, illegal- state tion to ly collected, from' wqs restraining granted pending order the state. hearing application of an for an interlocu- <@=303 j (I Courts im- waiver of —State’s tory injunction judges, before three as re- munity own consent sued in quired section 266 of the Judicial Code not consent courts is eral court be sued fed- II). (Const. [Comp. (28 1243]). Amend. § § USCA St. - immunity suit, state of its Thereupon composed judg- a court of three Waiver under sued consent Amend. and consent Const. application es convened ánd heard the for an in its does not constitute a own interlocutory injunction upon the bill of com- in federal court. be sued plaint, return, and answer the defend- (2) juris- <§=262 of federal 21. Courts —Test ants, number expert and a affidavits inadequacy remetfv diction behalf of plain- accountants both on inadequacy side law of that of rem- defendants, proprie- tiff and and the edies in state courts. ty granting interlocutory injunction equity jurisdiction The test in federal inadequacy now to be decided. court is the side inadequacy of that not the -of remedies amount of the tax assessed, with in- courts; hence afforded law terest, $350,000, excess of and the in- court-which is not available in federal admittedly come which it is assessed is juris- is not- sufficient defeat equity. income derived from interstate commerce. diction in divided into the tual ton miles of interstate total ton miles of years business. whole was like ied No company’s consolidated computed tax involved contends was not locating by years involved. commerce which the and the tax to the federal interstate business was returned showed no system a tax rate income tax ation of the volved eome tax acts. come; made this act Act approved commerce lina terpretation are tions in this state at a rate them here. United States taxing sively E. Mills v. [Comp. comparison this ease to say, the interstate For the South The facts with upon the ineome department regulations railway the state of South percentage percentage of the railway company on of 1922 passed interpreted set are as follows: the ineome taken as a amount South Carolina radical and its Query to the state of South Carolina St. forth Mr. Justice tax was arrived at Carolina November equal That determined, together year 1921, net law, namely, the paid thereon effect an act It in the state in this suit is involved South income (Acts §§ government with government. ineome, say of the net ineome as returned by et departure from ineome government The nature required to one-third total interstate Legislature of admirably ton correctly interstate of the act respect to the sufficient 6336%a-6336%zzz]), and is al., 122 known as the whole, Carolina 1922, p. its total derived unnecessary to restate derived mileage basis; persons freight mileage operated by but a has been is Carolina the construction for that the act company’s business earned within return. and no ineome on 844.21. ease additional General on net taxable freight satisfactory. equal to one-third purely computed for the for the freight thereunder, with for the tax mileage the ineome was South Carolina from interstate being by determining deficit, Marion revenue as a (42 contemplates as construed South original tax- previous in freight paid purposes of Income Tax determined, comprehen commission year. traffic, ineome intrastate was thus secured. Assembly interstate Stat. purposes For Congress years This act corpora imposed railway tax lev- and in and al- the ac- that is Santee to the ai F.(aa) adopt Caro taxa- then rev- For in RY. CO. QUERY a not whatever pany way company that the net ineome on lina. sis, mission should be determined on the ton large sessed as year 1921, interstate moving within the state, and has multiplied lengthy leased within net incоme from mile for 249.16, ancy sessed of by $835,326.35, from interstate state of South Carolina. The commission has enue ascertained the ton thus obtained was enue, multiplied by able net mined for rived from the lina in connection with 1917, and deducting to the 1917 the increase in sion, in take tenance of terminals, etc., in troversy the commission is unfair, in railway contends that railway, such as cost of of interstate South Carolina. changed since 1917 so of the traffic in South est actually incurred in The state tax commission, The contention of the income, and, if $2,698,539.66, upon by argument account of the by computing makes startling, proportion railway system the revenue income, the discount on cannot be taxable traffic $112,439.15. showed this is being has income computations, system figures, subject complicated, freight years within the state of average traffic system ascertained the interstate rev- traffic taxable it shows but that actually moving further the whole taxable to the adopted, commission shows when revenue average a deficit state of South Carolina. assessed The number as to the to tax ascertained 1923; 1924, reported the state of South miles of traffic general the state of South Caro- per during therefrom bonds on certain lines the mеthod the tax commission is rate interstate ‍‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‍traffic. as a administration, company. Carolina has whole, interstate commerce that the revenue as- While the methods the method railway but it is established ton revenue earned on contention that, mileage amounting per rate whole, per instead of a tax- that the commis- system the revenue de- company expenses year South Carolina that the that it fails mile, by as the income additional tax in ignored ton mile and the result a tax was as- the tax com- years by ton per and 1925 is mileage Carolina of company pursued reassessing of the rail- adopted within the during The com- ton reference of $857,- expenses per discrep- adopted actually ton greatly ineome nature had a deter- main- inter- Caro- miles since $27,- then plus mile con- per ba- by REPORTER, 2d FEDERAL SERIES arises under the Constitution the ton that, if this mode in the the laws of jurisdiction of all suits common law or the income should be provides mestication company would be controversy 190 U. S. therefore in the state laws, way al cial Code USCA without the the Constitution Wilson in that it uisite the federal courts point. of the Southern sessment ture of South fore 48 tutional commerce; (2) lina are not doing an interstate plaintiff bеcame the laws assessment C., of its domestication jection cisions State ^[1] mileage basis, as E. enter into citizenship. S. C. Co., But, Fourteenth C. & L. United additional At the costs, the sum or value company has no ex rel. Southern present case. diversity, of the United States on the We v. Southern diversity of even mileage of provisions made taxing income operates that the District St. (28 violates Carolina statutes South threshold, we met States court deem state, whereas was: of the 25 jurisdiction because has exceeds, exclusive of interest any extensive if it Supreme Court part of tax. Amendment. the S. R. Co. E. taxed; Southern domesticated basis be Carolina made without become of the United Carolina the tax as a burden of division equity invoke the Railway Company under E. 982. It liable Southern equal business R. citizenship, approved apportioned citizenship. The § matter settled basis Section considered are contends Co., R. Co. v. still has of a civil nature at acts of the are where the matter in Calvert v. Southern defendants that commission domesticated [Comp. fully R. Co. Baccus, other protection denies and there of under which t"he process clause discussion Court shall have does E. removes the 64 C. only in South of the statе and 24 of the Judi- (3) Railway property with or laws of the jurisdiction of and the income earned adopted, then domestication S. set corporations adopted, that the do- nevertheless $3,000, unnecessary notice, and it jurisdiction attacked as in that the Pittsburgh, § St. about States Tompkins, interstate the actu numerous decisions which show diversity forth in is there Legisla Allison, violates deprive the ob alleged the as the de of consti nature 991]) Caro U. $20,- cause. rail req- this this (1) the E. of three to this ease and the in the locutory injunction should be heard ly therefore that section 266 as amended the Constitution ly that the order of they statutes of South Carolina as statute covered the plication there Oklahoma Gas Co. v. this R. tion should be question and the effect of the an stitutional, section and was amended three provisions of section 266 of bill does not that the suit arises under amendment was introduced to den question that United Keith Vaudeville [4,5] States, and, alone, or S. Ct. Code. The defendants ^[3] necessary wholly pretentious intended to place administrative order is constitutional Co. v. Galbreath present, application for an United upon It The next statute of the question is, do commerce. (37 indirectly, judges'under may judges S. Ct. averments of the purview has States. application not Stat. (Act where an interstate commerce either are been unconstitutional, importance States is not even 67 L. Ed. this court has for three claim allege as therein burden whatsoever this bill three must be determined enlarge, interlocutory injunction Court. question presented is of 1013), authoritatively heard them, It of section 266 as amended. and have Commission—is suggested Exchange, superfluous But Feb. the administrative board— 70 L. Ed. 854. rights. jurisdictional amount be- and laws of the United section 266 of application judges, pursuant need not orders were within the administrative order is unnecessary to cite the Russell, we are of is a ease Cattle not to but that it was judges 977; uneonstitutionality interlocutory injunc allege Ed. 659. provided. to whether or not it bill. the the District but fictitious, and passing upon attacked as uncon 1925), Whatever further, however, 262 the case is with restrict, Great Northern Co., Constitution to hear an considered the merely alleges amendment of allowing Hart v. B. F. set at rest colorable, but arising under for the inter lay any U. S. held that the Judicial prevent any heard opinion upon inter the Code because 271 according violation whether original applies doubts direct- to the before Judge plain U. S. when claim them bur hold case this ap 43 of kuk 188 U. United 44 L. Ed. tion Madden, Union Pacific R. Co. v. Board of Commis as we shall 43 L. Ed. recognized head of titled to an is also settled Kentucky 496; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. Daughton, no other will free from difficulty,nevertheless, upon power to collect few of U. S. provided lee, 156 maintain an certain sioners, 247 party to show that dent. for an bring a tax a sufficient Pullman Palace 11 Ct. we quate. out interference plication sustain their questions and, where the propositions. The 578; Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. Board and, stitutional; equity, nevertheless, test Public Works, established both 92 Court that the vast mass of equity should to what the U. S. think that the S. Ct. taxpayer U. As to the v. 1110; be, & Hamilton parties although the case law or that the It must States. principles whether state U. S. the decisions which recovering 682, 575, 614, considering whether remedy by the other essentials involved are 159; 41 S. 681, Distilleries & Warehouse 354; create prima Wallace by the injunction. injunction in the U. S. respective 35 L. is not the assessment within 680, by paying illegality remedy at law must 172 Indiana decision figures be Ark. Car by injunctive interlocutory enjoin a cloud Bridge S. Ct. facie case in that respect, Tax affidavits and 282, must plain, full, should not Ed. 23 L. Ed. L. 15 Ct. the same State decisions of the U. S. U. S. Supreme Court Co., if he has compelled Bldg. tax is not sufficient or сase falls S. Ct. sustained. are has been adduced Hines, 303; complicated contentions, and Mfg. promptly of the 452, at law is We will cite power of a court of appear of the assessments, upon title 139 ordinary processes federal, 269, R. R. have been 32, has at least made S. Ct. & Loan Associa assessed, we do 67 L. Ed. 1051. upon Davis v. Wake visions of in an action 47 L. Ed. U. S. tax under 555, a federal jurisprudence; Co. v. process support 663; 19 20 S. Ct. issue. tax, necessary levy of such v. pleadings Salm et that he under some Tax Dawson v. rights but is en S. Ct. 39 and with 66 L. Ed. adequate remedy U. complete, doubtful, speculate 658, adequate Allen v. and not Co., Koehne, be uncon of law large L. Ed. only an is evi firmly Cases, While to 31 F.(3d) those Keo 651; pro thus ade 119, 661, 255 [8, ap the cloud al., 90, we an RY. merce and denies to the under 1926 books remove matter of the tax commission there was a protection of the laws. was made that quires taxes are and constitutes a burden its real the evidence tion of tute plaintiff in the state which show that amined and 1922 for the assessment and collection of view increased the assessment assessment of constitutional, property matter as powers of final assessment made on October and an think shall hereafter of the tax commission would create a clоud amount. The Without shown a make be different. Such unduly amplify tion of due portunity to plaintiff CO. v. be levied adequate remedy 9] argument process As to the think determined in that Act of taking of course is amount of the taxes. It (35 title. The could notice upon it, was assessed on QUERY that estate, opportunity attempting showing has an without due St. at the Tax Act of retained, evidence tends fact, the tax or that also think the court failure process fully protected. cross-examined, requirements. upon hereafter its title. cloud be upon assessment the taxes without on this plaintiff’s law. But show, and would therefore cast a produced, Large plaintiff’s property provisions heard hearing, at necessarily of the adequate remedy that recovery, this can and not the exercise of the plaintiff all of law can think law), now. motion, under under those certainly a opinion, to be heard (provided process before the taxes were show, action, it be cause the assessments During If, upon full was not contention that the 1922, be the case. but under the full deprives that an become liens in that the action and witnesses very notice and an sustained. As a however, it can property any there exists then p. repealed by Assuming and the hearing, confined to the improper then the interstate com- which did not a substantial would consti discussion 1), the course plaintiff which would true that the notice is un of the taxes result event, strongly made, Tax there is no is sufficient. law, large por- suggestion provisions plaintiff’s which re 12, 1926, may it upon at without injune- Act of Act of we of its notice where might if the as we equal ques upon basis that pro Our op say ex- do (2d) 21 E. —22 REPORTER, 2d SERIES real this, however, tion should denied. So the Aside from remedy has case such a No. so far as income taxes is whether provided by concerned, expressly the state. been the laws of has been abolished that Act 32 of defendants contend Income Tax Act of 1926. Section [10-12] Assembly act, providing No. 571 of the South latter after General 1017), says (32 St., Large, p. explicitly entitled for taxes, any “An empower act to there shall case other authorize illegal wrongful Carolina tax commission order an abate of or collection of income eases, attempt ment refund of taxes in certain to collect such taxes than taxes .or * * * approved day March, provided remedy'pro- the 22nd the act. The 1922,” gives complete D. far as it con- A. vided Act No. so adequate remedy taxes, at law. It is cerns income therefore not appear whenever shall to in event. however, the satisfaction contend, of the South Carolina tax The defendants also paid adequate commissionthat tax has complete, plain, that a erroneous, improper, provided by assess law is the Income Tax Act ment, power point case, commission shall have 1926. This is the crucial authority having to order officer and for reason shall set forth ver- custody erroneously, improp the sections of act relied the taxes batim erly, illegally paid, same, to refund the the defendants and also those sections which provides etc. Section 4 of the same act claims show that some of its ob- jections shall addition to remedies for to the effect of act are well tak- approved by the abatement or refund of taxes that en. The act was not the Gov- provided by Large, now be 12,1926 (35 law. The Court ernor until October atSt. p. very day in Bank 1), of Johnston v. assessed. these Prince, pertinent 136 S. C. S. E. held The sections are as follows: remedy was concurrent with other “See. The collection of income taxes provided prior remedies abatement taxes and that as in in acts, this or shall act comрel county stayed by mandamus would prevented any injunc- lie to not be or obey to order of tion, by any officers an the tax commis writ or order issued court or ' directing judge refund. thereon; writ, process sion The view and no order or any if the can show staying prevent- defendants kind whatsoever or illegally ing improperly tax has been or the South Carolina tax commission from the. taking any step assessed and the tax commission should refuse proceeding or in the as> refund, remedy any to order its it has its at law sessment or collection of income tax compel mandamus legally any to the defendants to is whether such tax is or not in requiring by any granted sue an order refund. But we do case judge be or the remedy adequate. any court; think that this in all cases whatsover place, person against any the first it is not available in the fed whom income tax shall courts, charged by eral because it is well settled that the stand the South Carolina tax com- power required federal courts have no to issue a writ mission shall pay be to the same original proceeding. moneys of mandamus as an such funds and as the said South Covington Bridge Hager, & Cincinnati Carolina tax commission shall ‍‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‍be authorized any 203 27 S. Ct. 51 L. Ed. 111. to receive U. act of the Assem- Gеneral prevent equity bly, In order to thereupon a court of shall have his assuming jurisdiction courts from provided. the-federal is hereinafter proper ease, in a law must any be “See. 32. In all cases which courts, and, the federal come taxes where are now or shall be hereafter machinery provided by charged is un the South Carolina tax commis- against any

known to courts, person, sion ’is and the South Caro- inadequate. This is illustrated deci commission payment lina tax shall claim the Supreme sion of the Chicago, Court in B. charged, any & of the taxes so or shall take Q. Osborne, step R. Co. v. 265 proceeding U. 44 Ct. or same, to collect case, remedy person against 68 L. Ed. 878. In that whom such charged, taxes are provided issuing against writ of or steps proceedings error whom such or taken, shall, Court of tax shall if the state to the he conceives the same body levying assessment, unjust any and it was to be cause, pay the held such taxes, writ error could be sued said which shall penalties, include the only.from out notwithstanding, protest the state writing Court and moneys not available in such funds and the federal courts. as the said made under made provided by law shall so collected county having jurisdiction; which refunded, penaltiеs the days Carolina tax ly its, treasury; ties and 1902; 1922, and amendments also been preference 512 erwards, the taxes termined tax commission shall tried shall troller General. thereto, struction pealed stitution of Income accrue in relation to said act.” 32 state treasurer to refund thereof in the penalties 1926 is an exact tions 31 and act, the sion day March, affects the Carolina tax [13,14] Before collected, for take effect are receive; 1922, income taxes or “Sec. 43. “Sec. 42. That on the order of premises said taxes then the court before of the Code assessment case of the only after pay wrongfully than have accrued the South copied by sections briefly and for the Tax Income Tax Act interests vol. bring of sections 31 and in said action that paid any difference between paid, making treasurer there shall present case, to other claims certify any, protest; and the any, county treasurer, including into the state to be Act of commission verbatim from sections 511 3 32 of January court of common commission thereupon their That taxes, and act shall remain an action illegal wrongful (sections and South Carolina 460 and copy considering giving of Laws of South Carolina were upon such which have accrued or collected and In Carolina penalties performed by of record that history. paid the reason the Income Tax eliminating any duty imposition attempt as amended, is collection 1922, so far he of the issue which shall wrongfully 1st, 1925. payment, hut thereto, which notice at Income Tax no other shall 412 approved against 461, time penalties, if whom the case going 32, and treasury accrue under the language its order conformity language tax commission them which this act.” passage the and if Sections 31 said person so payment was be authorized it. pleas for within of all Code ought amendments collect such is advisable is the sub taxes, taxes, the South 413, force for the same collection all taxes it be the 13th the mer- repealed verbiage commis not aft- timo paid illegal- Act Act of sec Comp of sec- penal- thirty being Sections 511 and 512 Code pay- have that any, may remedy con now- and the case and the de- re- F.(2d) RY. CO. v. were enacted more had lina give to one who E. 482. It is ment of the preme tions pose. Exchange Bank less ordinary action at quate, one der forbids define the and we do zenship and Western Union Tel. sides, law. law. penalties, decision of the and South Carolina detail and versy, tion that has guments chine v. 1922, 32 of asmuch as it is law R. covery Chicago, Ct. support S. C. 1926, equity, Benedict, Co. v. Weld In In issuance of an than which can he creates must statutes, doubt sections 31 would hold sections it is being we the Act of view, QUERY Court of of the same 50 S. E. 44 S. at Benedict, of this contention B. & 57 L. law such that have construing will if any, present and 512 uniformly he they first place, law jurisdiction, examine complete remedy difficult that however, supra, true that those decisions of taxes, namely 511 and 512 of the Civil Code deemed plain, adequate, consider Q. recent act S. E. do refer Co., should requisite the 870; Fleming South Carolina to and 32 of the Tax Act of Supreme that the Tax Act of 1926 very 1926 taxes plain the than show enforced Jones, urged (Singer law recover the same. of the Civil Code to see how there can be 1288), been particularly R. v. Co. 247 Supreme recover of the Civil Code construed to them sections doubtful and cites in of the earnest and thirty years ago, were pay illegal equity by such as diverse citi v. that sections 31 and (Singer protest, U. S. party to this view of the Osborne, presented act, amount in contro [33 Winnsboro, National Loan & and this Union Pacific R. Sewing Machine Court of South protest, in this court no сopied if the elements there importance 511 and Court of the v. of taxes and South Caro Sewing and the re each plain, state court Power, this could not 265 U. S. taxes un 38 Ct. action at being complete contends by pay able more in literally prevent objec- 942]; pur both ade 339 Ma Su In ar- no S REPORTER, 2d SERIES 340 deeming 62 L. Line cent act Atlantic Coast rem- it sufficient as a edy 262 43 Daughton, U. S. S. Ct. law. 67 L. Union Pacific R. R. There said Ed. 1051. cannot be doubt Co. Supreme v. Co., Weld. Court said Court of South respecting meaning if a controversy involving case is con- of the struction of new statute referred to was sections 31 and 32 not with- out some real of 1926, basis that its solution will feel bound pre- under its difficulty. construing not free from vious case, This decisions sections there- 511 fore, simply 512 of previ- line with all of the the Civil Code 1922 to follow those ous decisions decisions and of that which hold the same construction where there is sections 31 a substantial doubt as to the and 32. meaning of a recent statute and The Tax approved there is Act of 1926 was decision of Governor on Court October n party terms question, retroactive; is not bound to section 42 thereof speculate providing as what the decision will act should take effect January jurisdiction. and that will assume ques- assessments Daugh- Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. were made wit, v. on the (to same date supra, (October ton, Supreme Court, however, 1926) ap- the Governor n proved language might use which seem to indicate act. The contends fur- that, conceding ther plaintiff. broad doctrine claimed might the act be made But, although language Supreme retroactive, assuming, it had con- apparent- Court structive approval the last-mentioned case notice of the of the Gov- ly enough plaintiff’s ernor, broad to sustain conten- nevertheless that it could know whether, every tion that act must recent be construed assessments were under the 1922 act or act, before the at law can be deemed ade- and that there is a seri- quate, ous opinion nevertheless we are doubt can whether recover virtue provisions simply intended to reaffirm of section 32 of the taxes decisions, their former assessed all hold that under the act of 1922. But do not think there must be a substantial doubt or some serious doubt what- plausible ever as to controversy meaning for a respect- of the Income Tax Act of interpretation meaning respect. the stat- The Income ute, Tax Act of number of those 1922 and decisions are cit- amendments thereto ed sustaining, proposition. section 43 The cases the act of 1926, re- tained in thus cited force for Kentucky Dawson Distiller- assessment and collec- tion of Co., ies & taxes under Warehouse 288, 296, U. S. act of 638; sections Hines, 31 and 32 Wallace v. are not confined in their application 66, 68, U. S. S. Ct. to taxes assessed L. Ed. under the new Carter, expressly says Shaffer act. Section 31 col- Union.Pacific lection of in “this income County, R. Co. v. shall prior stayed, U. act or in not be etc. acts” Weld says expressly Section that all L. eases Wakelee, Davis v. any which “income taxes are- now or shall charged” hereafter be the South Carolina do not think that party may pay tax commission, the say that in no the samé Court meant to ease could a plainly bring provided under statute be drawn so that it need not and as clear, that sec- therefore, first.be construed of section. It is Court that only provide remedy, could be tions 31 a before it deemed an ade not quate remedy illegally plainly at law. The to recover taxes more a assessed under likely illegally statute is drawn, the less it is a act of but taxes un- assessed that controversy any prior including will der act, arise the act of 1922. to the this, state eourt. In addition is of however, consequence, therefore, It no whether above, plaintiff as we have shown or not as- sections of the knew that- the taxes under,the copied Code from which this statute was it assessed act have sessed were act; of other been of under for in construed surely provides State, that, cannot be contended event the act of 1926 it a recovery illegally their copied previous However, where an act is from a assessed. act judicial accruing received the taxes under-the construction Income Tax legally of 1922 highest only assessed court under .could the., that plaintiff court await the construction of its amendments, must the re- act tion and tion. where its therefore was was not available been cited to no decision which holds was citizenship because fact had whore the courts, recovery by the diction are met, broad claim made fore the matter. of-1926 the assessment for taxes therefore that act er the taxes learned of That taxes, whether But, taxes, sections took effect Chicago, common under the probably have come retained clude ought to The 1922 pressly was bound division collection apparently sively presumed ernor ^[15] know its collection papers on Act of actually irrespective suit, and that The the state held, their case, however, a short It writ if citing legal rights. pleas, does not afford counsel lives provides cannot have As matter was B. & assessed in force for suit was act of 1922. prescribes no plaintiff further of remedy it plaintiff also claims act remained concerned; but, or other refundment or thereafter. is that the general 1926 was must only taxes, recovery time expressly of taxes filed. known and is therefore 31 and not know proper Q. gives error to issue to the tax Supreme not available assessed legal cannot taxpayer is under support bo that it shall provided in prior instituted, day or adequate. day grounds heard to collection this, persons know might jurisdiction, taxpayer to the notice an signed brought This that rights the railroad does not Tax approved is one requisites entertain The already held in ordinary right it was at the Court, fact, the apply, law, and Columbia, and the unwilling that such inferior courts should they two recovery, and that vides ‍‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‍Act of recovery plaintiff. cannot of its contention was not be deemed complete remedy, contends act force, so far as risdiction arе plaintiff’s until of federal Osborne, supra. assessment thing and their say far of taxes in the federal on the another and therefore law; be But we have was of 1922. signed would cases. institution the state law the state treasurer and time such Singer that the act when shown, support published the court by the Gov recover argued such an are conclu of counsel. no brought shortly that it did affect the plaintiff’s may very therefore company provided pertains they assessed nized the suit remedy federal diverse It was theory recov to in- thing. 21 F.(2d) juris to all federal courts would being Sew- body that, such in and ac be the & ac ex- confer act such RY. CO. v. QUERY be way the state treasurer has fund the tax. No discretion is same merely this matter, the merits.” It termined for suggests tax be without have collected, matter trates’ courts would have such broad terms Machine v. inadequate gested is to be noted that actions sion of vided confer action if state treasurer therefore, if the would have law in a state Q. illegally refunded, terms. jurisdiction action, Osborne, doubt federal District Court commission or Machine v. to review respect the taxes were might R. jurisdiction were as the taxes state a default or jurisdiction ministerial. When the court has de- jurisdiction up At but Co. upon thаt the court for in and shall in the federal under the procedure, that there can be may bring wrongfully All that it could because it collected “for remedy. any rate, however, creates Benedict, refuse to it is their are well be that the state would be neither supra, competent any other $100, present. the action Osborne, supra, actions if their might court action should be party, are found Legislature section insists that Benedict, concerned, contends that had reason merits. The the state treasurer in a on its own certify present. a the decision of the requisites of federal upon the Chicago, through then questions cases eause the tax commission nor So refuse to wrongfully of provides and that it would then supra, issue its order or the collected and to enforce that duty might In this connection 32 in a of the action at jurisdiction,” general far as going jurisdiction courts. We take may entertain such ordinary such remedies of action and tax commission in supra, and of record that the used, statute could no discretion their duties are the tax commis- forthwith could have do would be to B. reason some technical decide Singer Sewing courts, jurisdiction of own federal courts that this pay arising the' action оf court. As to vested we Q.& R. Co. jurisdiction, brought “in then Chicago, or wrongfully requisites action entertain ought going the case illegally and the magis- but, merits in tax in the recog- claim, think, cause 32 is ease. that, pro- pro- sug- also are ju- re- B. it REPORTER, 2d SERIES that, this might not be doubted determine suggestion pre- bring ease at and can upon a action 'law matter, upon the merits but. not proceeding by showing vail in that technicality, do not default or for some collected, wrongfully illegally or an taxes deprives party of consider that this at or such court whether a federal court adequate remedy. be de there Whether undoubtedly give it a a state would always power of trial, fault or a in the it is judgment or order that would enable hearing have a of the case have such taxes refunded. surely upon party merits. A en is not pro- further insists that hearing titled to ask for more than a inadequate, vision contained section 32 upon Legis decision If merits. express provide does because it terms general not lature .had terms ‘ for interest. a number of decisions all actions the court should deci States, Court the United it was upon upon sions the merits and not mere that, provi- held where state technicalities, statutes made general this law would not be aggriеved taxpayer sion which the could deemed to render all actions of law incom illegally exacted, recover at law plete the taxes inadequate. or Such acts have been complete remedy, such would be a frequently upheld applied, both in state jurisdiction. take Union Pacific not section in that R. R. respect County, 282, 285, Co. v. Weld merely 247 U. S. applies general principle this 38 S. Ct. L. Ed. specific cases there an case of action for cited; Singer Sewing Benedict, Machine v. illegally income taxes assessed. A party L. Ed. cannot claim remedy that the law is in at and eases ques- there cited. In adequate simply the statutes in because the con apparently these eases fines recovery upon him there no- the merits and not express provision repayment of in- technicalities. What has he to terest on illegally the amount anything demand exacted. more than the merits of his may point said ease interest was- deserve? This seems to us to be the directly presented not plain eases, those meaning statute, of this concerning therefore the decisions in respect which can are substantial doubt. conclusive, not and to must be this view we borne mind also that section 512 agree. clined Code, which already been referred may to, be said contains this Whatever as to views language, exact those and the [17] were entertained in remote times re South Carolina in the interest, specting considering such exactions adequate cases cited held that usurious, all illegal, posi eases ordinary law and that an action would lie. tively sinful, yet in modern Evidently times ar that, if the considered long chaic notions have party grievance, since been had he could abandoned. have his Money proper now subject hire, fully claim satisfied action people the habits customs of Telegraph law. case of Co. v. Town Winnsboro, modem all in recognizing law concur in 50 S. E.. compensation is a 870, 872, the terest means of Court of South Caro money use of lina, considering very (former wrongfully lent detained. money to-day sumA ly section 413 of Code of than more worth exactly the same sum Code) now section 512 of next month or next year, ignore and we language: cannot the fact that to following used money to-day take a man’s and return him may “This law sometimes seem harsh and exactly period sum same at a later does and in some eases work oppressive, compensation not afford full wrong hardship; aggrieved taxpayer is that has' done him. think, there left remediless. Section comes to his re- fore, provide- which does not that a providing ‘if lief he conceives the a reasonable amount of interest for the unjust al- cause/ would not com of its detention be a time though tax, may he pay he must do so law, and, if in this plete case we- protest/ and then in due ‘under time he thought plaintiff would not enti county ‘bring treasurer interest, action at law to recover recovery tled the and he prevail for thereof/ bill. we retain this But are satisfied (italics we would ours) “by proceeding” in such show- express although section does ‘wrongfully illegally was ing that the tax or interest, provide for nevertheless ly he shall have his tax refunded.” collected/ the- law as decided of South language the In view of this and the other plaintiff Supreme state, of would Court the to, decisions referred can- Carolina South terest rate of asked to review. virtue one out more contract. Section tion 6 of of copy v. it, ume Code ception portance of be the Code ed seventh ties of the titled to wrongfully judgment for of interest ported twelve was various claims, cided adjudicated. question of the of the circuit cree was as to ed the Carolina interest true matter was held appear at the the Code Woodside, 133 S. law this error in the exceptions entitled Supreme Court of South Supreme Court. Under of the point therein, to ascertain proposition held that decided under which of interest interest by the decided on the the case decree Code allowing years, plaintiffs shows per7 however, of interest must questions interest exception adopted that, in involved excessive than rule must Code collected, record must have been to of Supreme that ease cent., of the 7at at 7 “error contain amounts state, in the circuit (corresponding nor the amount once, is recover the long period of interest. the taxes end of the case of law whieh the that and of an action view, Paris The record shows per per here, plaintiffs whieh p. and the briefs enter Supreme Court were alleges circuit as one of the 1912 and therefore circuit Rules (the same the per wrongful taxes, decision, that court are 688), questions intend- against the a concise statement of properly this Court. Supreme Court cent., cent, actions were in its effect after alleged courts), аllowing as has been interest Mountain however, of we have Supreme Court, paid. into copy is the party would cent, whether absence point court. published claimed, together recovery of taxes Carolina of 1895, from the court. considering question. considered section 131 S. ruled of considered to bo being not state the and each presented to time, The at the was assignments interlocutory injunction section practice in section obtained defendants Water entitled case of discussion mitted did allow must have upon the questions the form That brought, required question in favor plaintiff pointed show that interest could not express date section no 413 of ten circuit E. adopt- decree ques- legal making (sec- It par- date rate vol- 461 United 512 cause the im- Co. en- ex- refusal de- de- cause and fairly re- F.(2d) o'f RY. CO. v. a copy refuse the understood power therefore, 461 of the taxes whieh give judgment for whether the true was sessed in in such eases.” The ber rett presented this the pany) port judgment the case. An exception into terest, affirmed circuit states the 51; State v. Meares, therefore Woodside, eral every point distinctly presented Supreme Court S. E. 245. (the plain, adequate, express provision At the While therefore of decisions, including appellee (Paris v. Weinberg, constitutional provision, thought also decisions of the county officers) the decision of its upon in passing to award an contains an extensive Woodside, supra, Judge QUERY but that interest, States. The the circuit court’s that that decision was under- this desired to section of of 1926 that section. arose Court. Court, fairly point discussion been considered and Code hearing upon supra, provision interlocutory injunction that, in grant plaintiff, In Paris made and in our too nor the decree, ease, consequently alleges squarely of law involved comes record. The Supreme arises arising upon plain it is It is injunction. the Code referred art. interest and cites a case the court interest opinion court of reversing has a appeal,» therefor. Paris Mountain for of the Mountain question brief to consider and Supreme Constitution of have been distinctly upon have been suing true that based complete but section must application unhesitatingly an exception S. C. 527, 530, question short decree which per- § for this court among Mountain argument binding argument. whieh accordingly. respect question 8, requires and application be cannоt or decided solely Court entered the record of the The brief for record. Gar- Water Court of Water Com- recover these stated in argument interest illegally allowed denied, affirming a neither the defendants of interest because it decided federal or them appellant distinctly therefore an exact 37 S. E. point to made has no section Water within of in- doubt, decide Co. v. num- hold sup- sev- was our the the be- as- to REPORTER, 2d SERIES 344 der the decisions hearing, court has thereon. plaintiff presented fore ing upon ground action is available requisites able terlocutory injunction that, app'eals to have Singer Sewing ing the status tinued in by payment nied, of common cedes, as least that finally conditioned in the state, and such ment solved for reason of ought coneededthat it would be tinuance KINS, 000 for all substitute for canceling continued.' PARKER, ERNEST F. order should alleged illegal the plaintiff -such denied the The new provided the not to therefore be court nor granting individuals, against the federal courts. a state former District provided appeal been continued and a pending was decided bond when force heard the adjudged restraining the last-mentioned bond. of federal of the quo, they the pleas, defendants damages they may under idle1a provides rehearing Supreme restraining order,. interlocutory On While pending present, and, Machine v. opinion point an Circuit Judge, COCHRAN, indeed and is bond the Rehearing. then in the which was not considered a court of usual adequate remedy good -protest arguments continued in force section 32 of the given jurisdiction exist, appeal order petition the motion Supreme Court, restraining order, adequate remedy, will therefore confined concur. granted presented heretofore Court, Carolina Tax this pending apply Judge, temporary therefore object is a suit proper, form for federal courts the sum shall Benedict, 229 restraining, appeal, injunction. will former ordered, District sufficient for an order case action the and WAT- by ordinary recovery will be not be sustain for an and there- the South not- avail ought given up held deemed its Court in provided remedy it should restrain preserve opinion, plaintiff its con and the rehear- appeal, parties Judge. Act be de $400,- pend being order or at bond pay compel con con first that Wilson dis un not Ed. in provided U. at law a sent to this tax vides for provision against mon immunity tion.” not exist of the state Reeves, 178 its cannot guage courts against the federal courts. own stitution Murray against state ly collected, 151, 168, 169, Reeves, 265 suit and S. ^{[20] [19]} Reeves, supra, repay a suit 481, immunity Section The ággrieved principles U. 1140; courts, is a Chicago, pleas if the The Eleventh Amendment to There can courts, : “And the Murray sued be extended sued in Constitution and The court of be sued in the South Carolina tax precise question the state to a state, Distilling 178 v. Wilson provided by against 14, 16, Court of a federal from suit, one of its consented’ to be sued in suit rehearing 41 Ex state. The 32 of Chandler v. this does not constitute a consent the United States forbids section such creditor to sue the U. S. and under the. section 32 taxpayer may parte hereinbefore v. B. & against United any eounty a but the state S. Ct. thereof Wilson 44 Ct. S. Ct. be no doubt but that Ct. the Tax the therefore not available Chandler Dix, supra. consents 53 Ed. Co., elementary by implication L. Distilling 32 New common used the creditors, and, in this case should Q. perform L. object section United States,” treasury 942, the state. Smith and bring whether the 20 Distilling Dix, .the R. Co. other York, the Tax Act of 1928 therefore laws, when it does waive 431, 1129; Murray protest, Act court. S. Ct. S. Ct. stated, restricted “bring having jurisdic- U. 57 L. Ed. decisions of state consented pleas of the suit 194 U. S. Co., 213 following that, be sued in a States, L. Ed. its court of com- 256 U. S. court. From 32 is L. Ed. 742. of 1926 action would citing that consent taxes v. commission into a Co., obligation an action is a court presented an action Smith waive and that even Osborne, its is clear illegal such a supra, would Smith a 44 S.U. 1288, Con pro- is to con- own lan- pay if a suit suit the its its L. L. v. v. v. a well as in reason ferring jurisdiction, tion now risdiction section 32 is ion, will assume available and consent to be sued tablished, it ever the opinion inconsistent to enter into even we assume that it is not in the state of a federal on the law R. Co. v. L. Ed. 641. follows that er Union Pac. a federal jurisdiction. the decisions cited above. examined them cases, and restricted to the state a federal sufficient cases.' It is state adequacy of the eral ed to be defeated ed the federal plaintiff has no thorized able Smythe v. Ct. ^[21] conceded that which, Co., Erom eases ground that that a state cannot it, the test against court is courts. It is While a suit we why the federal L. Ed. they 42 L. Osborne, 265 cited plain ground to it is think it true, its own courts. Ames, 169 U. S. side of a state cannot waive a federal court at U. S. court, and R. Co. v. Weld jurisdiction. with,the court in equity is, these in the ease a suit sufficient Numerous In other principles asserted, above. all 878; Risty a federal a as stated however, afforded equity is not sufficient adequate extendеd discussion of those distinguishable, and is doubtful at plea to inadequacy of 378, 388, 46 S. Ct. remedies very is at least logically and principles are is not a court. 819; Chicago, B. & but of equity, a invoke principles being against U. S. words, if a suitor has equity jurisdiction court carefully, are inconsistent courts, nevertheless, cases have been cit- announced in these equally well-settled directly is not available had never consent- Davis Wakelee, say a federal court as remedy and therefore the the state and not our former afforded bar While 14, 16, 44 Ct. consenting doubtful wheth County, that section is law, and, and not the in jurisdiction should assume C., R. I. & P. remedy at law that we have plain, but the jurisdiction. perceive is not avail- the suit au- set forth in unnecessary law, equity inescapably 516, 18 confer firmly immunity in a fed we think deprive of con are not remedy it must by the 247 U. Atlan- in our 21 IT.(2d) wher opin ques to a ju es Q. RY. CO. payer sion personally interfering by way might ment under right a mere ment under legion) the taxes under certainly give no hint or indication ing South Carolina), where have the decision which holds such to be the law in the commission personally existed, it would made the defendants have cited a number of would by provide an adequate Ware Shoals he officerwould all If the defendants’ cоntention the tax is as would oust the at law. The defendants’ incorrectly decided; for under ants’ the tax is cases cited therein. tic Coast Line R. Co. v. afforded prevent equity interfering by injunction prevent the tortious act in it would be personally are not of the tax commission personal enjoined against remedy exists, or, support the absence none of had At the of those statutory authority, South Carolina they common anywhere that, v. would theory of action of action prevent sue the not be payment QUERY paid prepared the officer right have not cited from judgment against point that, act. The South Carolina decisions rehearing, paid at the common illegal, those cases constitute an tortious, cases, protest thereby section protest their Mfg. under the voluntary all against collecting collecting thereby prevent into to sue the Ct. under protest against nor equitable jurisdiction. to hold that, even if under a statute eases, by a then his law such a making equity jurisdiction. proposition in the payment hint the defendants’ and he would aside even if individually protest, protest put and sue the Daughton, 67 L. Ed. would (and aggrieved common law to would theory they and would illegal taxes, officer absence of аnd state recovery by the first instance. adequate officers from the officer and authorizing pay- Jones, collecting collecting them, and that suggestion plaintiff would remedy against treasury. cited their under notice, and, principles collection, at law. give correct, even the defend- did, personally; the absence have been collecting 262 U. S. that such retaining taxpayer decisions members be liable name is by pay- the tax- prevent (includ- statute, remedy remedy counsel protest such a though that it give obtain officer officer there- deci- even then pay suit See if REPORTER, 2d SERIES 3á6 has a bility words of that section. The state least, of South mission this statute protest against the there is no South Carolina decision to that patent. press terms edy, can mobile commission against the tax commission, and, no other vides a ed, ists personally; personal responsibility by providing edy against the tax commission have a that-section judgment fore be effect, There is no decision of of section 32 of that act Mills v. South Carolina of the United does not intend sense of such above, and take 211, 58 meaning controversy any remedy against C.S. of 1926 claim paid into the state under suit be But, a substantial of the state. Ed. 450. repayment individually against enactment of Co., 258 U. S. existed individually interlocutory injunction must granted. remedy. his chances at is clear that since the enactment difficult to plaintiff is not bound to to relieve the tax commission from even 129 S. E. decisions of the E. (not personally been abolished expressly says for that section Carolina successful; decision, there before that section was enact respecting of a federal court to create a if States, action by there is When aggrieved taxpayer E. them for doubt or it be statute, and in such members which holds that Burrill, Treas., and recover see how the backed Santee is clear 761; Lancaster 429. E. shall be no other rem Tax after treasury. can still that we personally, although the act payment the tax commission assumed that there and, furthermore, that there shall be or another personal remedy plausible Commission, Commission, 132 money that has Supreme Court but Supreme Court Mills payment that section 32 32 of the Tax against expressly pro is, interpretation Crescent the tax members individuals) maintain an says in ex may invoke treasury have cited defendants longer In the ab- responsi speculate certainly personal remedy. say express the tax a rem equity. Cotton Query, thеre- under Loco prior com Mfg. case, ex if judgment after notice to licensor freedom as is remitted relation of licensor and is entitled to reasonable time for election. contract made 3. Patents 5. Receivers renounce fend as made 2. by appointment, table in to facts of each defense to action pursuant years, 7. Receivers fense to liable regularly paid royalties during renouncing ties District sell articles covered contract at his and sold 1. Patents executory tice, may tice, thereunder cruing valid. ties while relation continues. equitable principles. receiver patent may it. show article made was not within contract, royalties Patents Receivers Patents royalties subsequently accruing. Licensee, Receiver is not bound defendant Principles Licensee, Licensee is A Receiver who stranger thereunder, UNIVERSAL against executory licensee, who has defend approval of invalidity receiver of their Court, after of court up to the time of his renunciation. thereafter royalties license, and, demand for respecting adoption <§=>129(3) <§=>129(3) for <§=>211 <§=>129(3) defend but license contract unless he since <§=>90 if evicted from use of <§=>90 the license but against payment for more than ‍‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‍a action for nature and are renounce governing <§=>90 infringement election, years, not within the patent estopped stranger contract N. D. patent patent. as defense to action for held entitled liable for case. contract are defendant unless he continued declaring patent invalid, may, (3) Licensee, without executory his on the articles he has made No. 674. against —Receiver — RIM CO. v. and licensee estopped —Receiver 1922. — —Licensee —Licensee is. —Licensee Rights royalties royalties appointment. Ohio, has been defend a license contract made is in fact manufactured with leave of license, and, after estopped adoption royalties by executory agreement to renounce license action for to manufacture and patent, either suit. show royalties accruing E. contract are to set equitably applied notice, against payment is not only or patent. determined D. March may, claims year held under invalid a number who has to continues. adjudged renounce liabilities or renuncia- SCOTT. royalties invalidity invalid, renunciation adopting estopped with same claim up patent adopts it, after bound after after his royalties entitled, licensor long license adopts as article article royal- royal- equi- may paid that has no- no- de- de- ac- by as Equity. Suit PARKER, Judge, and Circuit WAT- Company against Rim Frank KINS, Judge, A. District concur. Universal

Case Details

Case Name: Southern Ry. Co. v. Query

Court Name: District Court, E.D. South Carolina

Date Published: Jun 27, 1927

Citation: 21 F.2d 333

Docket Number: 410

Court Abbreviation: E.D.S.C.