Hannewinkle v. Georgetown
Cases that cite this one
65 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Fisher Flouring Mills Co. v. Vierhus (9th Cir. 1935)
- Cohen v. United States (D.C. Cir. 2011)
- CHIATELLO v. City and County of San Francisco (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)
- Appalachian Electric Power Co. v. Smith (4th Cir. 1933)
- Rieder v. Rogan (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1935)
- Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation v. Nylander (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1936)
- Milwaukee v. Kœffler (Supreme Court of the United States 1886)
- Second Nat. Bank of Titusville v. Caldwell (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1882)
- South Carolina v. Regan (Supreme Court of the United States 1984)
- Iraci v. Scanlon (District Court, E.D. New York 1961)
- Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association v. E. O. Bookwalter (8th Cir. 1960)
- Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Bookwalter (8th Cir. 1960)
- Bushmiaer v. United States (United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas 1956)
- Union Packing Co. v. Rogan (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1937)
- Lougee v. New Mexico Bureau of Revenue Commissioner (N.M. 1937)
- State Life Ins. v. Wichita County Water Improvement Dist. No. 2 (District Court, N.D. Texas 1937)
- Baltimore & OR Co. v. Board of Public Works (District Court, N.D. West Virginia 1936)
- Larabee Flour Mills Co. v. Nee (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1935)
- John A. Gebelein, Inc. v. Milbourne (District Court, D. Maryland 1935)
- Cohen v. Durning (District Court, S.D. New York 1935)
- Cook's Estate v. Sheppard (District Court, W.D. Texas 1934)
- Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co. of Fla. (Supreme Court of the United States 1932)
- Chicago Auditorium Ass'n v. Cramer (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1925)
- Risty v. Chicago, R. I. &. P. Ry. Co. (8th Cir. 1924)
- City Council of Augusta v. Timmerman (4th Cir. 1916)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
The action in this case cannot be sustained. It has been the settled law of the country for a great many years, that an- injunction bill to restrain the collection of a tax, on the sole ground of the illegality of the tax, cannot be maintained. There must be au allegation of fraud; that it creates a cloud upon the title; that there is apprehension of multiplicity of suits, or some cause presenting a case of. equity jurisdiction. This was decided as early as the days of Chancellor Kent, in Mooers v. Smedley, * and has been so held from that time onward. The remedy was held to be at law by writ of certiorari or by action of trespass.
It has long been held, also, that thére exists no cloud upon the title which justifies the interference of a court of equity, where the proceedings are void upon their face, that is, the same record which must be introduced to establish the title claimed, will show that there is no title. †
*549 The whole subject has been recently examined in this court in Dows v. The City of Chicago. * The head note of the case is in these words: “A suit in equity will not lie to restrain the collection of a tax on the sole ground that the tax is illegal. There must exist in addition, special circumstances bringing the case under some recognized head of equity jurisdiction, such as that the enforcement of the tax would lead to a multiplicity of suits or produce irreparable injury, or where the property is real estate, throw a cloud upon the title of the complainant.” The sole ground of the present bill is the illegality of the tax.
We are all of the opinion that the bill states no cause of action, and that it was properly dismissed.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.