Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Wright

Supreme Court

Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Wright

141 U.S. 696, 12 S. Ct. 103, 35 L. Ed. 906, 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2563

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 7, 1891

Docket13

StatusPublished

Cited by44 cases

This text of 141 U.S. 696 (Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Wright, 141 U.S. 696, 12 S. Ct. 103, 35 L. Ed. 906, 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2563 (1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Field,

• after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

We a,re relieved from a. consideration of jfche interesting questions presented as to the validity of the legislation of Georgia, levyingja license tax upon dealers in sewing machines, arising • *700 from the alleged discrimination made between retail dealers who are individuals and retail dealers who are companies, or wholesale dealers in such machines, where the tax required has not been paid by the manufacturing companies, as the taxes, to enjoin the collection of which this suit was instituted, have been paid by the complainant since the decree dismissing the bill was entered. This appears from the certificate of the comptroller general and the representation of the attorney general of the State, accompanied by copies of the writs of execution on which they were collected, with the receipts of the sheriff endorsed thereon. The taxes being paid, the further prosecution of this suit to enjoin their collection would present only a moot question, upon which we have neither the right nor the inclination to express an opinion.

This subject was considered somewhat at length in Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547. The payment of the taxes was, it is true, made under protest, the complainant declaring at the time that they were illegal, and that it was. not liable for them; that the payment was made under compulsion of the writs; and that it intended to demand, sue for and recover back the amounts paid. If this enforced collection and protest were sufficient to preserve to the complainant the right to proceed for the restitution of the money, upon proof of the illegality of the taxes, such redress must be sought in an action - at law. It does not continue in existence the equitable remedy by injunction which was sought in the present suit. The equitable ground for the relief prayed ceased with the payment of the taxes.

The appeal must therefore he dismissed; and it is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Field,

• after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

We a,re relieved from a. consideration of jfche interesting questions presented as to the validity of the legislation of Georgia, levyingja license tax upon dealers in sewing machines, arising • *700 from the alleged discrimination made between retail dealers who are individuals and retail dealers who are companies, or wholesale dealers in such machines, where the tax required has not been paid by the manufacturing companies, as the taxes, to enjoin the collection of which this suit was instituted, have been paid by the complainant since the decree dismissing the bill was entered. This appears from the certificate of the comptroller general and the representation of the attorney general of the State, accompanied by copies of the writs of execution on which they were collected, with the receipts of the sheriff endorsed thereon. The taxes being paid, the further prosecution of this suit to enjoin their collection would present only a moot question, upon which we have neither the right nor the inclination to express an opinion.

This subject was considered somewhat at length in Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547. The payment of the taxes was, it is true, made under protest, the complainant declaring at the time that they were illegal, and that it was. not liable for them; that the payment was made under compulsion of the writs; and that it intended to demand, sue for and recover back the amounts paid. If this enforced collection and protest were sufficient to preserve to the complainant the right to proceed for the restitution of the money, upon proof of the illegality of the taxes, such redress must be sought in an action - at law. It does not continue in existence the equitable remedy by injunction which was sought in the present suit. The equitable ground for the relief prayed ceased with the payment of the taxes.

The appeal must therefore he dismissed; and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 U.S. 696, 12 S. Ct. 103, 35 L. Ed. 906, 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singer-manufacturing-co-v-wright-scotus-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack