concerning the ownership thereof by the United States.22 Nor by a State against the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the General Land Office to enjoin the issue of a patent.23 In general, no injunction will lie against an officer of a Department, interfering with the discharge of his duties in the sale of public lands, so long as the title thereto remains in the United States.24

No court has jurisdiction of a suit to review the action of the Secretary of the Treasury in determining the rate of duty to be collected, under statutes and treaties, and to compel him to collect a specific amount.25 Nor of a suit to enjoin the Postmaster General or one of his assistants from terminating a contract for the carriage of mail.26 Nor to enjoin a District Attorney of the United States from instituting criminal proceedings under an erroneous construction of a valid statute.27 Nor to restrain the Director General of Railroads from changing the location of railroad shops from one place to another 28 Nor to restrain the commissioner of health of Porto Rico, in his official capacity, from purchasing land and erecting a tuberculosis hospital.29 An injunction was denied when prayed to prevent an army officer, acting under the orders of the Secretary of War and claiming statutory authority, from constructing in a proper manner a sewer upon Government lands which would injuriously affect other land on the stream into which the sewer emptied.30 It has been doubted whether a suit against the members of the Mississippi River Commission to enjoin them from constructing levees is not a suit against the United States.31 In a proper case, an injunction will lie against a marshal of the United States 25 Louisiana v. McAdoo, 234 U. S. 627.

22 State of Louisiana v. Garfield, 211 U. S. 70.

23 New Mexico v. Lane, 243 U. S. 52.

24 Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72, 87, 20 L. ed. 485, 458; Marquez v. Frisbie, 101 U. S. 473, 475, 25 L. ed. 800, 801; Humbird v. Avery, 195 U. S. 480, 503, 49 L. ed. 286, 296; Cameron v. Weedin, Register of U. S. Land Office, 226 Fed. 44; Devil's Den Consol. Oil Co. V. United States; Lost Hills Mining Co. v. Same, C. C. A., 251 Fed. 548.

26 Wells v. Roper, 246 U. S. 335. 27 Jacob Hoffman Brewing V. McElligot, C. C. A., 259 Fed. 525, modifying 259 Fed. 321.

28 Nueces Valley Town-Site Co. v. M'Adoo, 257 Fed. 141.

29 Solder v. Scoville, C. C. A., 253 Fed. 932.

30 Sheriff v. Turner, 119 Fed. 782. 31 Cubbins v. Mississippi River Commission, 241 U. S. 351.

to prevent the enforcement of a judgment which is void for want of jurisdiction, when such want of jurisdiction does not appear upon the face of the writ; 32 but in such a case, no injunction will be granted against the United States or a clerk of one of its courts.33

Payment of a sum of money by the United States cannot be compelled by a suit against the Comptroller of the Treasury or other public officer.34

An injunction will not be granted against an officer or agent of the United States forbidding the infringement of a patent right in the use of Government property.35 The only remedy of the patentee in such a case is a suit in the Court of Claims against the United States to recover reasonable compensation for the use of the patent, in accordance with the Act of June 25, 1910,86 except when the facts show an express or implied contract between. the parties, when a suit will lie upon the same.37 Nor against a Government contractor forbidding the making of articles which would contribute to an infringement of a patent by the Government.38 In a proper case a bill in equity will lie for an accounting to the patentee by a Government contractor who has infringed his patent.39 It has been held that no injunc

32 Kirk v. U. S., 124 Fed. 324; s. c., 131 Fed. 331. But see Buckley v. U. S., 196 Fed. 429, 431.

33 Buckley v. U. S., 196 Fed. 429. 34 Case v. Terrell, 11 Wall. 199, 20 L. ed. 134; Van Antwerp v. Hulburd, Fed. Cas. No. 16,827 (8 Blatchf. 282).

35 Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 U. S. 225, 235, 24 L. ed. 72, 75; Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10, 17, 40 L. ed. 599, 601; International Postal Supply Co. v. Bruce, 194 U. S. 601, 48 L. ed. 1134, affirming 114 Fed. 509; infra, § 100. Crozier V. Fried, Krupp Aktiengesell-Schaft, 224 U. S. 290, 56 L. ed. 771.

36 36 St. at L. 851; Crozier v. Fried, Krupp Aktiengesell-Schaft, 224 U. S. 290, 56 L. ed. 771. See Chapter on the Court of Claims, infra.

37 U. S. v. Palmer, 128 U. S. 262, 32 L. ed. 442; The United States v. Societe Anonyme des Anciens Establissements Cail, 224 U. S. 309, 56 L. ed. 778; § 96a, supra. But see Schillinger v. U. S., 155 U. S. 163, 39 L. ed. 108; Russell v. U. S., 182 U. S. 516, 45 L. ed. 1210; Harley v. U. S., 198 U. S. 229, 49 L. ed. 1029; Beach v. U. S., 226 U. S. 243, 57 L. ed. In the last three cases, it was held that the facts did not jus tify an inference of such a contract. So as to the use of copyright. Lauman's Case, 27 Ct. Cl. 260.

38 Marconi Wireless Tel. Co. v. Simon, 246 U. S. 46, modifying, C. C. A., 231 Fed. 1021, 227 Fed. 906; Sperry Hutchinson Co. v. Kuhn, 212 Fed. 555.

39 Wm. Cramp & Sons, and so

tion will lie against an individual or corporation to prevent the infringement of a patent by the use of a chute used in the I collection of the mail under the regulations of the Post Office Department and that an action for damages is the only remedy, if any, of the patentee, against the owner of the building where the same is used.40

The right to a mandamus against an officer of the United States is subsequently considered.41

§ 100a. Injunctions against collection of Federal taxes. The Revised Statutes provide as follows: "No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court." Under this provision, it has been held that wherever a tax is imposed by a person in office having authority in the assessment of taxes for the United States, who acts under color of the statute, no injunction will be issued to restrain its collection, no matter how erroneous the assessment may be, and although the person against whom the assessment is made does not own the property taxed. "It is sufficient that a statute has authorized the assessor to entertain the general subject of taxation; that it was in fact entertained, and a judgment, lawful or unlawful, was rendered concerning it." It has been held that the unconstitutionality of the statute imposing the tax will not authorize the issue of an injunction. The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia has denied an application for an injunction against the enforcement of the Act of October 3,

forth, Co. v. International Curtiss Marine Turbine Co., 246 U. S. 28. 40 Cutler v. Maryland Hotel Co., 168 Fed. 931.

41 Infra, §§ 457-459.

$ 100a. 1 U. S. R. S., § 3224, Comp. St. § 1901.

2 Kensett v. Stivers, 18 Blatchf. 397, 10 Fed. 517; Pullan v. Kinsinger, 2 Abb. U. S. 94, Fed. Cas. No. 11,463; Howland v. Soule, Deady, 413, Fed. Cas. No. 6,800; Delaware R. Co. v. Prettyman, 17 Int. Rev. Rec. 99, Fed. Cas. No. 3,767; Kissinger v. Bean, 7 Biss. 60, Fed. Cas. No. 7,853; Alkan v.

V.

Bean, 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 351, Fed. Cas. No. 202; United States Black, 11 Blatehf. 538, Fed. Cas. No. 14,600. But see Frayser v. Russell, 3 Hughes, 227, Fed. Cas. No 5,067. On general question of injunction to restrain collection of illegal tax, see note in 22 L.R.A, 699. 3 Emmons, J., in Pullan v. Kinsinger, 2 Abb. U. S. 94, 99, Fed. Cas. No. 11,463.

4 Robbins V. Freeland, 14 Int. Rev. Rec. 28, Fed. Cas. No. 11,883; Shelton v. Platt, 139 U. S. 591, 598, 35 L. ed. 273, 277, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 646.

1913.5 It has been held that a mandatory injunction requiring a collector of internal revenue to accept an export bond for spirits in a bonded warehouse and to allow their withdrawal for export without payment of taxes, is in effect a bill to restrain the collection of internal revenue taxes and cannot be granted. "The inhibition of section 3224 applies to all assessments of taxes made under color of their offices by internal revenue officers." "The remedy of a suit to recover back the tax after it is paid is provided by statute, and a suit to restrain its collection is forbidden. The remedy so given is exclusive, and no other remedy can be substituted for it. Such has been the current of decisions in the Circuit Courts of the United States, and we are satisfied it is a correct view of the law." This prohibition is constitutional, since the remedy by injunction is not a remedy at common law, and therefore the statute does not deny the citizen a right to legal process. "The system prescribed by the United States in regard to both customs duties and internal revenue taxes, of stringent measures, not judicial, to collect them, with appeals to specified tribunals, and suits to recover back moneys illegally exacted, was a system of corrective justice intended to be complete, and enacted under the right belonging to the Government to prescribe the conditions on which it would subject itself to the judgment of the courts in the collection of its revenues. In the exercise of that right, it declares, by section 3224, that its officers shall not be enjoined from collecting a tax claimed to have been unjustly assessed, when those officers in the course of general jurisdiction over the subject-matter in question, have made the assignment and claim that it is valid." The prohibition was

5 Dodge v. Osborn, S. C. D. C., May 14, 1914.

6 Miles v. Johnson, 59 Fed. 38. 7 Mr. Justice Blatchford, in Snyder v. Marks, 109 U. S. 189, 193, 27 L. ed. 901, 903, 3 Sup. Ct. 159; citing Howland v. Soule, Deady, 413, Fed. Cas. No. 6,800; Pullan v. Kinsinger, 2 Abb. U. S. 94, Fed. Cas. No. 11,463; Robbins v. Freeland, 14 Int. Rev. Rec. 28, Fed. Cas. No. 11,883; Delaware R. R. Co. V. Prettyman, 17 Id. 99, Fed. Cas. No.

14,600, United States v. Black, 11 Blatchf. 538, 543, Fed. Cas. No. 14,600; Kissinger v. Bean, 7 Biss. 60, Fed. Cas. No. 15,983; Alkan v. Bean, 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 351, Fed. Cas. No. 202; Kemsett v. Stivers, 18 Blatchf. 397, 10 Fed. 517.

8 Pullan v. Kinsinger, 2 Abb. U. S. 94, Fed. Cas. No. 11,463.

9 Mr. Justice Blatchford, in Snyder v. Marks, 109 U. S. 189, 194, 27 L. ed. 901, 903, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep.

159.

held to apply so as to forbid an injunction against assessments made and warrants for collection issued prior to the enactment of the original statute.10 It has been suggested that an injunction might be granted to restrain an unlawful increase of an assessment when sufficient ground for equitable relief was shown.11 An injunction by a State court against the assessment or collection of a Federal tax will be vacated after a removal of the case into a Federal court.12

This statute does not apply so as to forbid an injunction by a Federal court against the collection or assessment of taxes by State or municipal authorities in a proper case for relief.13 Judge Hughes in the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Virginia granted an injunction against the assessment of the tax against a citizen who had already paid all that was due. That judge said: "His threatened levy was for what was not a tax, and it was threatened to be made in a manner which set at naught the provisions of section 3371. It was a clear case for the exercise of the restraining power of the court; and was not a case falling within either the letter or spirit or intention of section 3224.'' 14

The case which held that the Income Tax of 1894 was unconstitutional was brought by a stockholder to prevent his corporation from paying the tax. The government did not raise the objection of an adequate remedy at law and an injunction was consequently granted.15 But where it appeared that the suit was collusive, the Supreme Court dismissed a similar bill; 16 and in a later case, where that did not appear but the district attorney.

10 Kensett v. Stivers, 18 Blatchf. 397, 10 Fed. 517.

11 Magee v. Denton, 5 Blatchf. 130, Fed. Cas. No. 8,943, A. D. 1863.

12 Kissinger v. Bean, 7 Biss. 60, Fed. Cas. No. 7,853.

13 Re Tyler, 149 U. S. 164, 37 L. ed. 689, 23 L. ed. 669; SchulenbergBoeckeler Lumber Co. v. Town of Hayward, 20 Fed. 422, 424. But see Wells v. Central Vermont R.

Co., 14 Blatchf. 426, Fed. Cas. No. 17,390.

14 Frayser v. Russell, 3 Hughes, 227, 330, Fed. Cas. No. 5,067.

15 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 554 (Harlan and White, JJ., dissenting at p. 653), 39 L. ed. 759, 809, 844, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673.

16 Corbus V. Alaska Treadwell Gold Min. Co., 187 U. S. 455, 47 L. ed. 256, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 157.