COUNTY COURT OF BRAXTON COUNTY, Jacob Huffman, President of Said Court, and John I. Bender and E. H. Cunningham, Commissioners of Said Court, Plffs. in Err., v. STATE...Tax Commissioner, and Amos Bright, John M. Marple, Henry Bender, and W. C. Baxter.
208 U.S. 192 (28 S.Ct. 275, 52 L.Ed. 450)
COUNTY COURT OF BRAXTON COUNTY, Jacob Huffman, President of Said Court, and John I. Bender and E. H. Cunningham, Commissioners of Said Court, Plffs. in Err., v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. C. W. DILLON, State Tax Commissioner, and Amos Bright, John M. Marple, Henry Bender, and W. C. Baxter.
Decided: January 27, 1908.
- opinion, Brewer [HTML]
Sections 7 and 8, article 10, of the West Virginia Constitution of 1872, prohibit the county authorities, except in certain specified cases, from levying taxes in excess of 95 cents per $100 valuation. In 1904 the valuation of property in Braxton county was $2,799,604. The state legislature, at an extraordinary session in 1904 and the regular session of 1905, changed the statute law in respect to taxation, largely remodeling the entire tax system. One of the objects of such legislation was to secure a more correct valuation of property. In 1906, under this new legislation, the assessed value of the property in Braxton county was $10,195,301, nearly four times the amount of the assessment in 1904. In view of an expected increase in valuation the legislature enacted chapter 48 of the Acts of 1905 (Code of West Va., 1906, chap. 39, § 29), by which it was provided that no county court should, in the year 1906, assess or levy taxes which should exceed by more than 7 per cent the aggregate amount of taxes levied by it in the year 1904. The levy made in the county of Braxton in 1904 of 95 cents on the $100 valuation produced the sum of $26,596.23, subject, of course, to such minor reductions as might come from delinquencies and exonerations. Therefore, under the act of 1905, the amount which the county court could levy in 1906 was the $26,596.23 plus an addition of not to exceed 7 per cent, or $1,861.73, making a total of $28,457.96. To raise this amount a levy of not to exceed 28 cents on each $100 was sufficient. The county court, however, made a levy of 65 cents on every $100, and caused it to be entered upon the records of the court. Such levy of 65 cents would produce the sum of $66,269.45, more than double the amount which was authorized under the legislation of 1905. Thereupon the state tax commissioner and certain residents and taxpayers of Braxton county applied to the supreme court of the state for a mandamus to compel the county court to change that assessment to conform to the requirements of the act of 1905. The county court made answer and return to the alternative writ of mandamus, pleading that the amount necessary during the current fiscal year to pay the necessary expenses, discharge the county debts and liabilities payable during that year, was at least $57,146, not including an amount for interest and sinking fund of certain railroad bonds theretofore legally issued by the county. In other words, it may be said, in a general way, that the defense of the county court was that the sum authorized to be levied by the act of 1905 was insufficient to meet the ordinary expenses of the county, pay the interest, and provide a sinking fund for outstanding bonds. It was pleaded specifically that at the time these railroad bonds were issued there was not only no restriction upon the power of the county court to levy taxes for payment of the principal and interest thereof, but, on the contrary, that the general statutory law in force required the county to levy a tax in amount sufficient to pay the annual interest and provide a sinking fund. It was contended that these provisions entered into and became a part of the contract with the bondholders, and that the restrictions made by the act of 1905 worked an impairment of the obligation of the contract, and hence it was in conflict with § 10 of article 1 of the Federal Constitution.
The supreme court of appeals issued the mandamus as prayed for, whereupon the defendants brought the case here on error.
Mr. George E. Price for Plaintiffs in error.
Argument of Counsel from pages 194-196 intentionally omitted
Mr. W. Mollohan for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Brewer:delivered the opinion of the court:
Speaking generally, the regulation of municipal corporations is a matter peculiarly within the domain of state control. The taxing body, the taxing district, and the limits of taxation are determinable by the legislature of the state. Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 78, 26 L. ed. 658; Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506, 41 L. ed. 1095, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 665, and cases cited in the opinion; Williams v. Eggleston, 170 U. S. 304, 310, 42 L. ed. 1047, 1049, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. 4th ed. p. 52, and following. True, the legislature may sometimes, by restrictive legislation in respeet to taxes, seek to prevent the payment by a municipality of its contract obligations, and in such a case the courts will enforce the protective clauses of the Federal Constitution against any state legislation impairing the obligation of a contract. In other words, no state can, in respect to any matter, set at naught the paramount provisions of the national Constitution.
Again, that the act of the state is charged to be in violation of the national Constitution, and that the charge is not frivolous, does not always give this court jurisdiction to review the judgment of a state court. The party raising the question of constitutionality and invoking our jurisdiction must be interested in, and affected adversely by, the act, and the interest must by, the decision of the state court be of a personal, and not of an official, nature. Clark v. Kansas City, 176 U. S. 114, 118, 44 L. ed. 392, 396, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 284; Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 276, 283, 45 L. ed. 527, 530, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 368; Smith v. Indiana, 191 U. S. 138, 148, 48 L. ed. 125, 126, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 51. In the latter case suit was brought in the state court against a county auditor to test the constitutionality of the exemption law of Indiana, which was claimed to be in conflict with the Federal Constitution. The decision of the state court having been in favor of the act, the auditor brought the case here.
Mr. Justice Brown, delivering the opinion of the court, cited the following cases: Tyler v. Registration Ct. Judges, 179 U. S. 405, 45 L. ed. 252, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 206; Clark v. Kansas City, 176 U. S. 114, 44 L. ed. 392, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 284; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51, 47 L. ed. 70, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 20; Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 276, 45 L. ed. 527, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 368; Ludeling v. Chaffe, 143 U. S. 301, 36 L. ed. 313, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 439; Giles v. Little, 134 U. S. 645, 33 L. ed. 1062, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 623, and said:
'These authorities control the present case. It is evident that the auditor had no personal interest in the litigation. He had certain duties as a public officer to perform. The performance of those duties was of no personal benefit to him. Their nonperformance was equally so. He neither gained nor lost anything by invoking the advice of the supreme court as to the proper action he should take. He was testing the constitutionality of the law purely in the interest of third persons, viz., the taxpayers; and in this particular the case is analogous to that of Caffrey v. Oklahoma, 177 U. S. 346, 44 L. ed. 799, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 664. We think the interest of an appellant in this court should be a personal, and not an official, interest, and that the defendant, having sought the advice of the courts of his own state in his official capacity, should be content to abide by their decision.'
These decisions control this case and compel a dismissal of the writ of error, and it is so ordered.
CC∅ | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org
- NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al.
- Frederick D. RAINES, Director, Office of Management and Budget, et al., Appellants, v. Robert C. BYRD et al.
- WILLIAMS v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE. SAME v. MAYOR, COUNSELOR, AND ALDERMEN OF CITY OF ANNAPOLIS.
- THOMAS R. MARSHALL, as Governor of the State of Indiana, et al., Plffs. in Err., v. JOHN T. DYE.
- COLEMAN et al. v. MILLER, Secretary of the Senate of State of Kansas, et al.
- Charles W. BAKER et al., Appellants, v. Joe C. CARR et al.
- E. P. McCABE, J. T. Jeter, John W. Capers, and S. G. Garrett, Appts., v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTE FE RAILWAY COMPANY, the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, the Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railway Company, the Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railway Company, and the Fort Smith & Western Railroad Company.
- SAMUEL STEWART, as Treasurer of Wyandotte County, Kansas, Plff. in Err., v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, Kansas.
- CITY OF PAWHUSKA v. PAWHUSKA OIL & GAS CO. et al.
- SOUTHERN IOWA ELECTRIC CO. v. CITY OF CHARITON, IOWA, et al. IOWA ELECTRIC CO. v. CITY OF FAIRFIELD, IOWA, et al. MUSCATINE LIGHTING CO. v. CITY OF MUSCATINE, IOWA et al.
- JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE v. McGRATH, Atty. Gen. of the United States, et al. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AMERICAN-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP, Inc., et al. v. McGRATH, Atty. Gen. of the United States, et al. INTERNATIONAL WORKERS ORDER, Inc., et al. v. McGRATH, Atty. Gen. of the United States, et al.
- Paul POE et al., Appellants, v. Abraham ULLMAN, State's Attorney. Jane DOE, Appellant, v. Abraham ULLMAN, State's Attorney. C. Lee BUXTON, Appellant, v. Abraham ULLMAN, State's Attorney.
- COLUMBUS & G. RY. CO. et al. v. MILLER, State Tax Collector.