• View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
  • http://laws.findlaw.com/us/236/188.html
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
    SOUTHERN OPERATING CO. v. HAYS, 236 U.S. 188 (1915)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    SOUTHERN OPERATING CO. v. HAYS, 236 U.S. 188 (1915)

    236 U.S. 188

    SOUTHERN OPERATING COMPANY, Paul Heyman, and H. W. Steiner, Plffs. in Err.,
    W. P. HAYS, County Clerk of Hamilton County, Tennessee, and J. Parks Worley, State Revenue Agent of the State of Tennessee.
    No. 122.

    Supreme Court of the United States
    Argued January 14, 1915

    February 23, 1915

    Messrs. Carlisle S. Littleton, James J. Lynch, Jesse M. Littleton, and George D. Lancaster for plaintiffs in error.

    Mr. Frank M. Thompson, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Mr. J. B. Sizer for defendants in error. [236 U.S. 188, 189]  

    Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

    This case was brought to enjoin the collection of a state and county privilege tax upon the same facts as those which were involved in the case just decided [ 236 U.S. 178 , 59 L. ed. --, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 403]. The two cases in both the trial and the court below were heard together, and they were here argued at the same time. The court below, in disposing of this case, with one exception placed its conclusion upon the same grounds upon which it decided the previous case. The one exception referred to was a declaration that the trial court erred in granting the injunction so far as the state tax was concerned because there was no authority to enjoin the collection of such a tax, and the only right was to pay under protest and sue to recover. Whatever difference between the two cases would otherwise result from that point of view need not be considered, since the attorney general of the state in the argument at bar in express terms states that that question is not insisted upon. It being thus removed from consideration, a complete identity between the two cases results, and for the reasons given in the previous case the judgment in this case must also be reversed.


    FindLaw Career Center

      Search for Law Jobs:

        Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
    Ads by FindLaw