Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
GRANITE BITUMINOUS PAVING CO. v. LANDIS, 1909 — 214 U.S. 504 · caselaw · US
Tax
GRANITE BITUMINOUS PAVING CO. v. LANDIS
214 U.S. 504·Supreme Court of the United States·1909
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
GRANITE BITUMINOUS PAVING CO. v. LANDIS.
' APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP MINNESOTA.
No. 528.
Submitted May 3, 1909.
Decided May 17, 1909.
The Circuit Court has not jurisdiction of a suit against a number of delinquent taxpayers for assessment work where the assessment due from each taxpayer is less than two thousand dollars.
Appellant (complainant below) filed its bill against a large number of defendants to foreclose on special tax bills for assessment work done and for which defendant’s property was liable. The assessments aggregated more than two thousand dollars, but each assessment was less than that amount. The Circuit Court dismissed the bill, holding that complainant had a separate and distinct action at law in the state court on each special tax bill, and that as each was less than two thousand dollars the Federal courts had no jurisdiction. Complainant appealed directly to this court.
Mr. W. L. Sturdevant for appellant.
There was no appearance for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The Circuit Court properly held that it had no jurisdiction, for want of the jurisdictional amount, and its decree dismissing the bill is affirmed with costs.