delivered the opinion of the court. -
Thе plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, brought his action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia against the defendant, both being citizens' of that State. The declaration, in substance, sets out that the plaintiff, owning property in the City of Richmond, was assessed thereon for., the year 1882 for сertain taxes to be paid to the State of Virginia, leviable, for after December 1, 1882; that the defendant was treasurer of the City of Richmond, and, as such, collector of tаxes due to the State'assessed on property in that city; that plaintiff tendered to the defendant, on demand being made for payment of said taxes, the amount thereof in coupons cut from bonds issued by the State of Virginia under the aсt of March 30, 1871, entitled “ An-Act to' provide for the funding and paymеnt of the public debt,” which coupons, by the terms of said act, were receivable in payment of'taxes by virtue of а contract with the State of Virginia; that the defendant refused to receive said coupons, under color of the authority of the act of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, passed January 26,1882, which forbade him to receivе the saíne; that the defendant, after refusal of said tender, forcibly and unlawfully entered the premises of the plaintiff, аnd levied *308 upon and seized and carried away personal property of the plaintiff of the value of $3,000, in order to sell the same for the satisfaction of said taxes, whiсh he claimed to be unpaid and delinquent; that the acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, specified in the pleadings, which require the tax collector to refuse to recеive such coupons in payment of taxes, and to prоceed with the collection of taxes, for the pаyment of which they have been tendered, as if they were dеlinquent, impair the obligation of the said contract betwеen the State of Virginia and the plaintiffand that by reason of the said wrongs the plaintiff has suffered damage in the sum of $6,000, for which he brings suit.
To this declaration the defendant demurred generаlly, the demurrer was sustained, and judgment was rendered for the defеndant. The plaintiff sued out this writ of error.
All the questions raised and аrgued upon the merits of this case have been fully considеred in the opinion of the court in the case of Poindexter v. Greenhow, ante, 270.
The рresent action, as shown on the face of the deсlaration, was a case arising under the Constitution of the Unitеd States, and was one, therefore, of which the Circuit Court оf the tJnited States had rightful jurisdiction by virtue of the act of March 3,1875, withоut regard to the citizenship of the parties, the sum or value in controversy being in excess of $500.
In conformity with the views expressed in the opinion in Poindexter v. Greenhow,
.The judgment in the present case is reversed and thie cause is rema/nded, with directions to proceed therein in conformity with, la/w.