Opinion · United States District Court

STALEY v. HOPKINS, (N.D.Tex. 1925)

STALEY v. HOPKINS, 9 F.2d 976 (United States District Court, N.D. Texas,at Dallas. 1925)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States District Court
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1925-11-25
Topic
general

STALEY v. HOPKINS, (N.D.Tex. 1925) 9 F.2d 976 STALEY v. HOPKINS et al.United States District Court, N.D. Texas,at Dallas. November 25, 1925.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STALEY v. HOPKINS, (N.D.Tex. 1925). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STALEY v. HOPKINS, (N.D.Tex. 1925)
9 F.2d 976
STALEY v. HOPKINS et al.
United States District Court, N.D. Texas,
at Dallas.
November 25, 1925.
In Equity. Suit for injunction by C.R. Staley against George C. Hopkins and another. Bill dismissed.
J.W. Hassell, of Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff.

Henry Zweifel, U.S. Atty., and N.A. Dodge, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Fort Worth, Tex., for defendants.
MEEK, District Judge.
The plaintiff, C.R. Staley, filed his bill of complaint against George C. Hopkins and B.F. Crews, seeking to have the defendants restrained and enjoined from selling his homestead, which is occupied by himself and family in Vernon, Wilbarger county, Tex. Upon reading the plaintiff's bill, I granted a restraining order directing the defendants, George C. Hopkins and B.F. Crews, not to sell plaintiff's homestead, as it had been advertised for sale, but instead to appear before the court, and show cause why the temporary injunction and the permanent injunction prayed for should not be granted.

Mr. George C. Hopkins, collector of internal revenue, and B.F. Crews, his assistant, have appeared and filed their answer to the bill of plaintiff, and asking that such bill be dismissed. The plaintiff and the defendants have appeared, and their counsel have made arguments in support of their respective contentions.

After duly considering their arguments in connection with the briefs submitted by them, I have decided that, because the sale of this homestead is for the purpose of paying an income tax levied against Mrs. Staley, wife of the plaintiff, and because of the provisions of section 3224 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (Comp.Page 977St. § 5947), which is as follows: "No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court," and in view of the rulings of the United States Supreme Court upon this section of the Revised Statutes, I have decided that plaintiff has not the right to maintain this bill and is not entitled to the relief prayed for therein.

Therefore this bill is dismissed, and the costs of this proceeding shall be taxed against him.Page 977