Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

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

S. OPERATING Co. v. HAYS, COUNTY CLERK OF HAMILTON COUNTY,TENNESSEE., 236 U.S. 188 (1915)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1915-02-23
Topic
general

SOUTHERN OPERATING CO. v. HAYS, 236 U.S. 188 (1915) SOUTHERN OPERATING COMPANY v. HAYS, COUNTY CLERK OF HAMILTON COUNTY,TENNESSEE. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE. No. 122.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed SOUTHERN OPERATING CO. v. HAYS, 236 U.S. 188 (1915). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

SOUTHERN OPERATING CO.v. HAYS,236 U.S. 188(1915)
SOUTHERN OPERATING COMPANYv. HAYS, COUNTY CLERK OF HAMILTON COUNTY,
TENNESSEE.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE.
No. 122.
Argued January 14, 1915.
Decided February 23, 1915.
Decided on the authority ofHeymanv.Hays, ante, p. 178.
THE facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Carlisle S. LittletonandMr. James J. Lynch, with whomMr. Jesse M. LittletonandMr. George D. Lancasterwere on the brief, for plaintiff in error.Mr. Frank M. Thompson, Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, andMr. J.B. Sizer, for defendant in error.Page 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. 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.Reversed.Page 190