Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 547 (1873). · Go Syfert
Search
Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 547 (1873). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
117 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 32 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: CHIATELLO v. City and County of San Francisco (calctapp, 2010-10-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1901 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1901 1963 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CHIATELLO v. City and County of San Francisco
Cal. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
There must exist in addition, special circumstances bringing the case under some recognized head of equity jurisdiction, such as that 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.’ ” 9 (Hannewinkle v. Georgetown (1872) 82 U.S. 547, 549 [ 21 L.Ed. 231 ] [quoting Dows\\ accord, e.g., State Railroad Tax Cases (1875) 92 U.S. 575, 613-614 [ 23 L.Ed. 663 ]; Cheatham et al. v. United States (1875) 92 U.S. 85, 89 [ 23 L.Ed. 561 ].) This reasoning was also adopted by …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) South Carolina v. Regan (2×)
SCOTUS · 1984 · confidence medium
See, e. g., Dows v. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108, 109-110 (1871) (suit to restrain collection of taxes will lie if plaintiff shows that enforcement will cause irreparable harm or lead to a multiplicity of suits); Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 547, 548-549 (1873) (same).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Risty v. Chicago, R. I. &. P. Ry. Co.
8th Cir. · 1924 · confidence medium
In Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 547, 548 ( 21 L.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Cohen v. United States (6×)
D.C. Cir. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
Thus, in a late nineteenth century case, the AIA prohibited enjoining the collection of a tax on tobacco on the theory the tax was “illegally assessed.” Snyder v. Marks, 109 U.S. 189, 192-93 , 3 S.Ct. 157 , 27 L.Ed. 901 (1883); see also Hannewinkle v. City of Georgetown, 82 U.S. 547, 548 , 15 Wall. 547 , 21 L.Ed. 231 (1872).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Verdin v. City of St. Louis
unknown court · 1895 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 547 ; 2 Beach, Mod.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hannewinkle
v.
Georgetown
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 14, 1873.
15 Wall. 547
1872 U.S. LEXIS 1282
Mr. Samuel Tyler, for the appellant; Mr. W. A. Cook, contra.
Hunt.
Cited by 81 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Justice HUNT

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.

*

6 Johnson’s Chancery, 28.

†

Heywood v. City of Buffalo, 14 New York, 534; Susquehanna Bank v. Supervisors Broome County, 25 New York, 312.

*

11 Wallace, 109.