Supreme Court of the United States, 1885

Pleasants v. Greenhow

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 4, 1885 · Matthews, Bradley, Miller, Gray, Parsons

114 U.S. 323; 5 S. Ct. 931; 29 L. Ed. 204; 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1764 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. William H. Moyall, Mr. Daniel H. Chamberlain [Mr. William B. JBornblower was with him on. the brief], Mr. Wager Sitiayne and Mr, WiLiam M. Marts for appellant., Mr. F. 8. Blair, Attorney-General of the State of Virginia, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Allen v. County of Jackson (Or. Ct. App. 2000)
Clarence Eisen v. Oliver C. Eastman (2d Cir. 1969)
In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation (District Court, N.D. Illinois 2005)
Czajkowski v. State of Ill. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1977)
Wynn v. Indiana State Department of Public Welfare (District Court, N.D. Indiana 1970)
Joe Louis Milk Company v. Hershey (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1965)
Joe Louis Milk Co. v. Hershey (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1965)
Marian Timmerman Byrd, by Harry Timmerman, Father and Natural Guardian, as Next Friend v. F. L. Sexton (8th Cir. 1960)
Lynch v. Household Finance Corp. (Supreme Court of the United States 1972)
Murphy v. Love (10th Cir. 1957)
United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Machinery Co. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1906)
Holt v. Indiana Manufacturing Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1900)

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

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-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.