
    PLEASANTS v. GREENHOW, Treasurer.
    ARPEAOS FBOM THE CIRCUIT COUET OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ^ THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA.
    This ease falls wifchin'the decision in Garter y. Greenhow, ante, page 317.
    
      Mr. William H. Moyall, Mr. Daniel H. Chamberlain [Mr. William B. JBornblower was with him on. the brief], Mr. Wager Sitiayne and Mr, WiLiam M. Marts for appellant.
    
      Mr. F. 8. Blair, Attorney-General of the State of Virginia, for appellee.
   Me. Justice MATTHEWs

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a bill in equity filed by the, appellant, a citizen of Virginia, praying that the defendant, Greenhow, Treasurer of the City of Richmond, may be perpetually enjoined from taking steps, by distraint of the complainant’s property, to collect certain taxes claimed by the defendant to be due to the State of Virginia, amounting to $36.25, but for which the bill avers the complainant tendered in payment the exact amount thereof, for a part, coupons cut from bonds issued by the State under the act of March 30, 1871, and part in money.

On demurrer to the bill, it was dismissed by the Circuit Court for want of jurisdiction, the amount in controversy, being less than' $500, and the complainant has brought this appeal.

• It is sought to maintain the jurisdiction in this case on the ground that the suit is authorized by Rev. Stat. § 1979, jurisdiction to entertain which is conferred by the sixteenth clause of Rev. Stat. § 629.

The case comes within the decision just' rendered. in Carter v. Greenhow, and is governed by it. It is not, in our opinion, ■such a suit as is contemplated by the. sections of the Revised Statutes referred to.

As the sum or value in controversy does, not exceed $500, the suit cannot be maintained as- a cáse arising under the Constitution and laws of the.TTnited States, provided.for in the act of March 3, 1875, ch. 137s 18 Stat. 470. The bill was, therefore, rightly, dismissed.

■The decree of the. Circuit Cowrt is accordingly affirmed.

MR. Justice Bradley, with whom were the Chief Justice, ,. ■ Mr. Justice Miller, and Mr. Justice Gray, concurred in the judgment, but rested their concurrence upon the grounds- • stated in their opinion, post, page 330, after the opinion of the court in Marye v. ParsoNS.  