Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/536

 %24 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �tain the suit. These classes of decisions recognize the principle that, if the proceeding is a nullity, the statute against an iujuiiction has no application. But the proceeding is held not to be a nullity where there is general jurisdiction in the class of cases involved, and where the tribunal has judicially determined that the case is within it. �In the present case it is not pretended that there was not general jurisdiction of this subject of assessing taxes on tobacco against tobacco manufacturers. This power neeessarily covered the questions of quantity, rate of tax, amount of tax, and persons liable to tax as tobacco manufacturers, in respect to the tobacco under adjudication. Mistakes in any of these respects were only errors, and not such absence of jurisdiction as to make the proceedings ■wholly null and void. The bill admits that Sharkey had business arrangements with the iirms, or one them; that they were engaged in the tobacco trade in the city of New York ; that the plaintiff was told that money was invested in her name in such business ; that she signed a paper Jan- uary 1, 1866, whioh appeared to be a partnership paper of the firm of Alexander Ross & Co. ; that a tax was assessed against her and others as doing business under the iirm name of Alexander Eoss & Co., and other names, for tobacco manufactured, sold, or removed, withoat payment of tax, from November 1, 1865, to October 31, 1866 ; and that there is a record of the assessment of such tax in the o£5ce of the commissioner of internai revenue. This state of facts is sufficient to bring this case within the decision in Pullan v. Kin- singer. �In Kobh'ms v. Freeland, 14 Int. Eev. Eec. 28, in 1871, in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of New York, a bill was filed to restrain a collector of internai revenue from collect- ing an income tax assessed against the plaintiff, on the ground that the aet of congress imposing it was unconstitutional and void, and that the plaintiff had no remedy at law suiBcient to indemnify him if the collecter was allowed to distrain and sell bis property. The defendant relied on the inhibitory statute and the decision in Pullan V. K'uinnijer. Judge Benedict held that the court was forbidden by the statute from entertaining the application. �In Delaware R. Co. v. Prettyman, 17 Int. Eev. Eec. 99, in the cir- cuit court of the United States for the district of Delaware, a railroad Company sought to enjoin the collection of a tax assessed by an assessor of United States internai revenue on interest money payable by it on its bonds, and on dividends of profits made by it. It was ��� �