Skip to content


Southern Operating Co. Vs. Hays - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number236 U.S. 188
AppellantSouthern Operating Co.
RespondentHays
Excerpt:
southern operating co. v. hays - 236 u.s. 188 (1915) u.s. supreme court southern operating co. v. hays, 236 u.s. 188 (1915) southern operating company v. hays no. 122 argued january 14, 1915 decided february 23, 1915 236 u.s. 188 error to the supreme court of the state of tennessee syllabus decided on the authority of heyman v. hays, ante, p. 236 u. s. 178 . the facts are stated in the opinion. page 236 u. s. 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.....
Judgment:
Southern Operating Co. v. Hays - 236 U.S. 188 (1915)
U.S. Supreme Court Southern Operating Co. v. Hays, 236 U.S. 188 (1915)

Southern Operating Company v. Hays

No. 122

Argued January 14, 1915

Decided February 23, 1915

236 U.S. 188

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

Syllabus

Decided on the authority of Heyman v. Hays, ante, p. 236 U. S. 178 .

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 236 U. S. 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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //