Henneford v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
Headline: Railroad’s challenge to Washington’s 2% compensating tax was dismissed because the federal court lacked the required dollar amount, reversing the injunction and sending the case back for dismissal.
Holding: The Court held that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction because the tax dispute involved only $2,044.08—less than the required amount—so the injunction against enforcing Washington’s 2% tax must be dismissed.
- Prevents federal courts from deciding small-dollar state tax disputes without required money threshold.
- Reverses injunctions when the complaint shows insufficient monetary stakes.
- Requires plaintiffs to allege sufficient dollar amounts to keep tax suits in federal court.
Summary
Background
A railroad company sued Washington’s tax agency to stop enforcement of a new 2% "compensating tax" on goods used in the State. The railroad said it bought materials out of state in May and June 1935 totaling $102,204.18 and that the state demanded a 2% tax, penalties, and possible seizure of property. A three-judge federal court permanently blocked the tax, and the State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The high court focused on whether the federal court had the right to hear the case based on how much money was at stake. The State argued there was no legal remedy in ordinary court if the tax were paid, so an equity court could act. But the complaint showed the tax amount in dispute was only $2,044.08, and the Court said that number did not meet the required dollar threshold for federal jurisdiction. A request by the railroad to add later months’ taxes to the record was denied, so the Court decided only from the original complaint.
Real world impact
Because the disputed tax amount was too small under the federal rules, the Court reversed and sent the case back with instructions to dismiss for lack of federal jurisdiction. This means small-dollar state tax disputes like this one cannot be decided in federal court unless the complaint shows the required money amount. The earlier injunction against the tax is therefore undone.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?