Bailey v. George
U.S.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp v. Secretary United States Department of Health 3rd Cir.
- 2023Optimal Wireless LLC v. IRS D.C. Cir.
- 2021CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS SCOTUS
- 2020Michael Holland v. Westmoreland Coal Compan 5th Cir.
- 2019CIC Services, LLC v. IRS 6th Cir.
- 2019Cic Servs., LLC v. Internal Revenue Serv. 6th Cir.
- 2015Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Burwell D. Wyo.
- 2015Florida Bankers Ass'n v. United States Department of Treasury D.C. Cir.
- 2012National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius U.S.
- 2011Seven-Sky v. Holder D.C. Cir.
Cites 1 case
- Dodge v. Brady
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
BAILEY, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. v. GEORGE, TRADING AND DOING BUSINESS AS VIVIAN COTTON MILLS, ET AL.
Attorneys
- Mr. Solicitor General Beck, with whom Mr. Robert P. Reeder, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, was on the brief, for appellants,
- Mr. W. Cleveland Davis and Mr. Campbell B. Fetner for appellees.
Delivered the opinion of the court.
The decree entered herein by the District Court and appealed from, directly, to this court, under § 238 of the Judicial Code, recited that the complainants operated a manufacturing plant for the production of cotton goods in Gaston County, North Carolina; that the defendant was a Federal Collector of Internal Revenue; that on the ground that complainants had employed children in their factory within the limits of ages prescribed in § 1200 of the act of Congress, known as the Child Labor Tax Law, approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057, 1138, they were under its terms assessed the sum of $2,098.06; that they filed a claim for abatement of the same, which was denied, that the Collector was about to make the exaction by distraining* complainants’ property, levying on it and selling it, that the act of Congress purporting to authorize the assessment was invalid under the Constitution of the United States, and on these grounds permanently enjoined the Collector from proceeding to collect the assessment.
An examination of the bill shows no other ground for equitable relief than as stated in the order. The bill does aver “That .these your petitioners have exhausted all legal remedies and it is necessary for them to be given equitable relief in the premises ”; but there are no specific facts set forth sustaining this mere legal conclusion. Section 3224, Rev. Stats., provides that “ No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court.” The averment that a taxing statute is unconstitutional does not take this case out of the section. There must be some extraordinary and exceptional circumstance not here averred or shown to make the provisions of the section inapplicable. Dodge v. Brady, 240 U. S. 122, 126. In spite of their averment, the complainants did not exhaust all their legal remedies. They might have paid the amount assessed under protest and then brought suit against the Collector to recover the amount paid with interest. No fact is alleged which would prevent them from availing themselves of this form of remedy.
The decree of the District Court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the bill.
Reversed.