McGahey v. Virginia
Citations
- 135 U.S. 662
- 34 L. Ed. 304
- 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2050
- 10 S. Ct. 972
Syllabus
<p>The decisions Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U. S. 672; Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769; Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. 269; Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U. S. 567; Royall v. Virginia, 116 U. S. 572; Sands v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 585; Royall v. Virginia, 121 U. S. 102; In re Ayers, In re Scott and In re McCabe, 123 U. S. 443, are reviewed; . and, without committing the court to all that has been said, or even all that has been adjudged in those cases, on the subject of the act of the legislature of Virginia of March 30, 1871, to provide for the funding and .payment of the public debt, and the issue of coupon bonds of the State under its provisions, it is now Held,</p> <p>(1) That the provisions of the act of 1871 constitute a contract between the State of Virginia and the lawful holders of the bonds and coupons issued under and jn pursuance of said statute;</p> <p>(2) That the various acts of the assembly of Virginia passed for the purpose of restraining the use of said coupons for the payment of taxes and other dues to the State, and imposing impediments and obstructions to that use, and to the proceedings instituted for - establishing their genuineness, do in many respects materially impair the obligation of that contract, and cannot be held to be valid or binding in so far as they have that effect;</p> <p>(3) That no proceedings can be instituted by any holder of said bonds or coupons against the Commonwealth of Virginia, either directly by suit against the Commonwealth by name, or indirectly against her executive officers to control them in the exercise of their official functions as agents of the State;</p> <p>(4) That any lawful holder of the tax-receivable coupons of the State issued under the act of 1871 or the subsequent act of 1879, who tenders such coupons in payment of- taxes, debts, dues and demands due from him to the State, and continues to hold himself ready to tender the same in payment thereof, is entitled to b.'e free fro
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- permitting action against state officer who, acting pursuant to state law that allegedly violated the contract clause, U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 1, refused to accept bonds issued by state government and thereafter seized taxpayer's property to satisfy tax liability
- permitting action against state officer who, acting pursuant to state law that allegedly violated the contract clause, U.S. Const, art. I, § 10, cl. 1, refused to accept bonds issued by state government and thereafter seized taxpayer’s property to satisfy tax liability
- “what would be reasonable in one class of cases would be entirely unreasonable in another.”
- Dissenting opinion of Frank, Circuit Judge
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bradley
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.