Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Wright

The payment, whether voluntary or compulsory, of a tax, to prevent the payment of which a hill in equity has heen filed, leaves no issue for the court to pass upon in that case.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. The court stated the case as follows: The appellant, the complainant below, is a corporation formed under the laws of New Jersey. The defendant Wright is the comptroller-general of the State of Georgia, and the defendant Thomas the sheriff of one of its counties, both, citizens of that. State. The complainant' is engaged, in New Jersey, in the manufacture of sewing machines and articles employed in their use. These it sends, and has been in the habit of sending for many years, to Georgia, where it keeps on hand in its buildings a large stock and sells them to consumers, or by sub-agents sent through the State. In December, 1886, the legislature of Georgia passed an act to raise revenue for the fiscal years of 1887 and 1888, which, among other things, provided for the collection of a license tax from the vendors of sewing machines in the State. The bill alleges that in this tax the act discriminates between retail dealers who are individuals, and dealers who are companies or wholesale dealers in machines on which the tax required has not been paid by the manufacturing companies, in this, that it requires of the latter the payment of two hundred' dollars for the purpose of doing business in the State, and in addition a tax of ten dollars for each agent employed, whilst of the former no tax at all is required. It is, therefore, contended that the act, in this respect, violates the- 7th article of the state constitution, requiring uniformity of taxation upon the same class of subjects, and also the last clause in the 1st section of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which declares that-no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,-5’ and thereby imposes a limitation upon all the powers of the State which can touch the individual or his property. The bill sets forth, in substance, that, notwithstanding these alleged grounds of invalidity in the law, the comptroller general of the State is seeking to enforce the collection, of the tax, and has placed, or is aj?out to place, for this purpose, executions in the hands of the defendant Thomas, sheriff of Fulton County. It therefore prays for an injunction staying the proceedings until the further order of- the court, and that upon the final hearing the comptroller may be perpetually enjoined from issuing any execution for the collection of the tax. The comptroller general answered the bill, and upon the hearing which followed the court denied the injunction and dismissed the bill. .33 Fed. Eep. 121. From its decree the case was brought to this court on appeal? ■ [Before the case was reached the appellees’ counsel represented to the court, that the executions issued by the comptroller general for taxes due the State of Georgia, when the bill in said case was filed by the appellant, and to enjoin the collection of. which taxes was the relief sought by said bill, had been paid by said appellant since the decree appealed from was rendered — as shown by the certificate of said comptroller general, attached, as an exhibit thereto: and moved “that said appeal be dismissed for the reason that abstract questions of law only are now involved in said case, and that the only remedy remaining to said appellant is to bring a suit against the said comptroller general for the recovery of said taxes so paid to him under protest.” The argument on this motion was heard with the argument on the merits.]