Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

526

(248 U. S. 525)

CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v.
WRIGHT, Comptroller General
of Georgia.

bring the case here. It presents another attempt to accomplish, by a change in form, what in Wright v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 236 U. S. 674, 35 Sup. Ct. 471, 59 L. Ed.

(Argued Jan. 21, 1919. Decided Feb. 3, 1919.) 781, was held to be an unconstitutional result.

No. 163.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 138-IMPAIRING
CONTRACT OBLIGATION-CORPORATE CHAR-
TER-EXEMPTION FROM
CONSTITUTION.

TAXATION-STATE

The Constitution of a state, being subsequent to the charters of a railroad that created an exemption from taxation, must yield to them. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 137-IMPAIRING

[1, 2] In that decision it was explained how the Central of Georgia Railway Company had become the holder of leases from the Augusta & Savannah and the Southwestern Railroad of property which by the charters of the lessors was to be taxed only in a certain An attempt way and to a certain amount. had been made to tax the lessee for the property, the leases being for one hundred and one years, renewable in like periods upon the same terms forever. The tax was laid upon the real estate, road *bed, and franchise value, (with a certain deduction,) of the two lessors. It was held that the statutes made the fee exempt from other taxation than that provided for, in favor as well of the lessee as of the lessor. The taxes now attempted to be levied are upon the leasehold interests In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of the lessee in the same roads and it is arguof Georgia.

CONTRACT OBLIGATION-TAXATION-EFFECT
OF LEASE.

The charter of a railroad company, making its property taxable only in a certain way and to a certain amount, held to prevent additional taxation of the leasehold of its lessee of such property.

[blocks in formation]

ed that, if the leases produce a profit in excess of the rental, the value is required to be taxed by the Constitution of the State. But the Constitution was subsequent to the charters that created the exemption and must yield to them if they apply to the present attempt. We are of opinion that although the decision in the former case necessarily was confined to the question before the Court, the reasoning applies with equal force to that now before us. The cases of Rochester Ry. Co. v. Rochester, 205 U. S. 236, 27 Sup. Ct. 469, 51 L. Ed. 784, and Jetton v. University of the South, 208 U. S. 489, 28 Sup. Ct. 375, 52 L. Ed. 584, were urged as opposed to the conclusion reached but were thought not to control in view of the exceptional facts and language that had to be considered, as was

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion recognized in Morris Canal & Banking Co. v. of the Court.

This is a bill in equity brought by the Railway Company to prevent the collection of certain taxes, which, it is alleged, would be contrary to Article 1, § 10, and to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The case was heard on bill, demurrer and answer and certain agreed facts, and the Court of first instance issued an injunction as prayed. The decree was reversed however by the Supreme Court of Georgia and a writ of error was taken out to

Baird, 239 U. S. 126, 132, 36 Sup. Ct. 28, 60 L. Ed. 177. We must follow the precedent that was established after full discussion and with recognition of the difficulties involved.

The charter contracts in question are of a kind that goes back to the time when railroads were barely beginning and that would not be likely to be repeated, but of course will be carried out by the State according to what was meant when they were made. Decree reversed.

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS

DISPOSED OF AT OCTOBER TERM, 1918

(248 U. S. 595)

Circuit denied.

(248 U. S. 585)

No. 150. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COM- No. 783. Olof N. TEVANDER et al., petiPANY, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA ADJUST- tioners, v. Eleanor M. RUYSDAEL. Jan. 13, MENT COMPANY. Jan. 13, 1919. On writ 1919. For opinion below, see 253 Fed. 918. of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For opinion | States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh below, see 237 Fed. 954, 150 C. C. A. 604, which affirms, California Adjustment Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 226 Fed. 349. Mr. C. W. Durbrow, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Mr. Leon E. Morris, of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the petitioner.

(248 U. S. 547)

No. 287. FEDERAL GAS & FUEL COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO: Jan. 13, 1919. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio. For opinion below, see 96 Ohio St. 530, 118 N. E. 103. Mr. Henry A. Williams, of Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Henry L. Scarlett, of Columbus, Ohio, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk & O. V. R. Co., 228 U. S. 596, 599, 33 Sup. Ct. 605, 57 L. Ed. 982; Municipal Securities Corporation v. Kansas City, 246 U. S. 63, 69, 38 Sup. Ct. 224, 62 L. Ed. 579; Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. Northern Realty Co., 244 U. S. 300, 304, 37 Sup. Ct. 643, 61 L. Ed. 1153; Bilby et al. v. Stewart, 246 U. S. 255, 257, 38 Sup. Ct. 264, 62 L. Ed. 701.

[blocks in formation]

(248 U. S. 585) No. 785. Sarah BRESSLER, petitioner, v. Mary C. LUDWIG and Henry W. Ludwig. Jan. 13, 1919. For opinion below, see Ludwig v. Bressler, 253 Fed. 8. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

[blocks in formation]

No. 157. Maggie L. LUKENS, plaintiff in error, v. INTERNATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. Jan. 16, 1919. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. For opinion below, see 269 Mo. 574, 191 S. W. 418. Mr. William C. Scarritt, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff in error. Mr. Fred A. Boxley, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant in error. Dismissed, per stipulation.

(248 U. S. 548) No. Original. Ex parte In the matter of George E. HAMILTON, petitioner. Jan. 20, 1919. Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of habeas corpus denied.

(248 U. S. 548)

No. 120. Elvie WHEELER, by his next friend, P. T. Wheeler, plaintiff in error, v. CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. Jan. 20. 1919. In error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky. For opinion below, see 171 Ky. 436, 188 S. W. 462. Mr. Buford C. Tynes, of Hazard, Ky., for plaintiff in error. Mr. John Calvin, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant in

error.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231. 36 Stat. 1156) as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214).

(248 U. S. 548)

No. 139. ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. W. N. REYNOLDS. Jan. 20, 1919. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina. For opinion below, see Reynolds v. Adams Express Co., 172 N. C. 487, 90 S. E. 510. Messrs. Robert W. Winston, of Raleigh, N. C., and Thomas DeWitt Cuyler, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Clement Manly and B. S. Womble, both of Winston-Salem, N. C., for defendant in

error.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156) as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214).

(248 U. S. 586)

No. 410. GIN DOCK SUE, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Jan. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 245 Fed. 308, 157 C. C. A. 500. Mr. Marshall B. Woodworth, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. The Attorney General, for the United States. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

No. 628. James A. KEOWN, petitioner, Mary E. KEOWN et al. Jan. 20, 1919. See, also, 230 Mass. 313, 119 N. E. 785. Mr. James A. Keown, in pro. per. Motion for leave to prosecute in forma pauperis denied.

No. 748. The SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY, appellant, V. The UNITED STATES. Jan. 20, 1919. Motion to strike out part of the findings or to remand for new findings denied without prejudice.

(248 U. S. 586)

No. 780. Michael PEYSER, petitioner, v. Elizabeth J. GRAUTEN. Jan. 20, 1919. For opinion below, see 254 Fed. 688. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

[blocks in formation]

(248 U. S. 549)

tratrix of the estate of William Van Buskirk, No. 153. Elmira VAN BUSKIRK, adminisdeceased, plaintiff in error, v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY. Jan. 27, 1919. In error to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. For opinion below, see Erie R. Co. v. Van Buskirk, 228 Fed. 489, 143 C. C. A. 71. Mr. Frank F. Davis, of New York City, for plaintiff in error. Mr. George S. Hobart, of Jersey City, N. J., for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 241 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1157 [Comp. St. § 1218]); Haseltine v. Central Bank of Springfield, 183 U. S. 130, 22 Sup. Ct. 49, 46 L. Ed. 117; Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173, 175, 25 Sup. Ct. 654, 49 L. Ed. 1000; Louisiana Navigation Co. v. Oyster Commission of Louisiana, 32 Sup. Ct. 47, 56 L. Ed. 156, 226 U. S. 99, 101, 33 Sup. Ct. 78, 57 L. Ed. 138.

(248 U. S. 549)

No. 160. LARGE OIL COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. E. B. HOWARD, State Auditor of the State of Oklahoma. Jan. 27, 1919. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. For opinion below, see 163 Pac. 537. Messrs. John H. Burford, of Oklahoma City, Okl., and John H. Brennan, of Bartlesville, Okl., for plaintiff in error. Mr. S. P. Freeling, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed with costs, and cause remanded for further proceedings upon the authority of Choctaw O. & Gulf R. R. Co. v. Harrison, 235 U. S. 292, 35 Sup. Ct. 27, 59 L. Ed. 234; Indian Territory Il

luminating Oil Co. v. Oklahoma, 240 U. S. 522, 36 Sup. Ct. 453, 60 L. Ed. 779. And see Howard, Auditor of the State of Oklahoma v. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co., 247 U. S. 503, 38 Sup. Ct. 426, 62 L. Ed. 1239.

(248 U. S. 550) No. 182. J. D. BOXLEY, plaintiff in error, v. E. M. SCOTT and Franklin Chaney. Jan. In error to the Supreme Court of 27, 1919. the State of Oklahoma. For opinion below, see 162 Pac. 688. Mr. Harry H. Rogers, of Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiff in error.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214).

(248 U. S. 550) No. 183. The BALTIMORE & OHIO | 868. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the RAILROAD COMPANY and Chesapeake & United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ohio Railway Company, plaintiffs in error, v. Seventh Circuit denied. Louis BLOCK. Jan. 27, 1919. In error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia. Mr. Rudolph Bumgardner, of Staunton, Va., for plaintiffs in error.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156) as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214).

(248 U. S. 550)

No. 306. NEW ORLEANS LAND COMPANY and Lakeview Land Company, plaintiffs in error, v. The LEADER REALTY COMPANY. Jan. 27, 1919. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. For opinion below, see Leader Realty Co. v. Lakeview Land Co., 142 La. 169, 76 South. 599. Messrs. Charles Louque and W. O. Hart, both of New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs in error. Mr. William Winans Wall, of New Orleans, La., for defendant in error.

(248 U. S. 588)

No. 794. Albert LE MORE and Edward E. Carriere, petitioners, v. The UNITED STATES of America. Jan. 27, 1919. For opinion below, see 253 Fed. 887. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

(248 U. S. 587)

No. 800. GRAND LODGE, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, petitioner, v. Sallie Ann GROVES. Jan. 27, 1919. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied.

(248 U. S. 596)

No. 190. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAIL

ROAD COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. W. H. GALLUP et al., etc. Jan. 30, 1919. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina. For opinion below, see Gallop v. PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of ju- Norfolk-Southern R. Co., 173 N. C. 21, 91 S. risdiction upon the authority of section 237 of E. 375. Mr. W. B. Rodman, of Norfolk, Va., the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, for plaintiff in error. Dismissed with costs on 36 Stat. 1156), as amended by the act of Sep-motion of the plaintiff in error. tember 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214).

(248 U. S. 550)

No. 684. John E. HARTENBOWER et al., .plaintiffs in error, v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF ILLINOIS. Jan. 27, 1919. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois. For opinion below, see Hartenbower v. People, 283 Ill. 591, 119 N. E. 605.

PER CURIAM. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of section 237 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1156) as amended by the act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214).

(248 U. S. 586)

(248 U. S. 596)

No. 193. SAVANNAH & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY et al., plaintiffs in error, v. Maggie ROACH, administratrix, etc. Jan. 30, 1919. In error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia. For opinion below, see 19 Ga. App. 388, 91 S. E. 506. Mr. Robert M. Hitch, of Savannah, Ga., for plaintiffs in error. Dismissed with costs on motion of the plaintiffs in error.

(248 U. S. 597)

No. 527. CAROLINA SPRUCE COMPANY, plaintiff in error, v. BLACK MOUNTAIN RAILWAY COMPANY. Feb. 3, 1919. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Ten

No. 787. METROPOLITAN TRUST COM-nessee. For opinion below, see 139 Tenn. 137,
PANY OF CITY OF NEW YORK, Trustee,
etc., petitioner, v. CHICAGO & EASTERN
ILLINOIS RAILROAD COMPANY et al.
Jan. 27, 1919. For opinion below, see 253 Fed.

201 S. W. 154. Mr. Robert Burrow, of Bristol, Tenn., for plaintiff in error. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error.

(249 U. S. 110)

LANE, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. PUEBLO OF SANTA ROSA.

comprise some 460,000 acres, and are within the region acquired from Mexico under what is known as the Gadsden Treaty of December

(Argued Jan. 29, 1919. Decided March 3, 1919.) 30, 1853. 10 Stat. 1031. The suit is brought by the pueblo of Santa Rosa, and its right to the relief sought is based on two allega

No. 197.

1. INDIANS 2-JURISTIC PERSON-INDIAN tions, which are elaborated in the bill: One

PUEBLO.

The pueblo of Santa Rosa, within the region acquired from Mexico under the Gadsden Treaty, and by Act Aug. 4, 1854, made part, and subject to "all the laws," of the territory of New Mexico, one of which (Laws N. M. 1851-52, pp. 176, 418), provided that the inhabitants of any Indian pueblo having a grant or concession of land from Spain or Mexico should be a body corporate, and as such capable of suing in respect of such land, thereby became, if it was not before, a legal entity and juristic person, which status was not lost by its inclution in the territory of Arizona, Act Feb. 24, 1863, extending thereto the laws of New Mexico, nor by Arizona becoming a state.

2. INDIANS 27(1)—Wards of GovernmenT -DISPOSITION OF LANDS-INJUNCTION.

The fact, if such, that the Indians of the pueblo of Santa Rosa are wards of the United States, does not prevent the pueblo maintaining suit to enjoin disposition of its lands as public lands of the United States; an act not of guardianship, but of confiscation.

[ocr errors][merged small]

that under the laws of Spain and Mexico it had, when that region was acquired by the United States, and under the 'provisions of the treaty it now has, a complete and perfect title to the lands in question; and the other, that in disregard of its title the defendants are threatening and proceeding to offer, list and dispose of these lands as public lands of the United States. In the court of first instance the bill was challenged by a motion to dismiss in the nature of a demurrer, and the motion was sustained. In the Court of Appeals the case made by the allegations in the bill was held to be one entitling the plaintiff to the relief sought, and the decree of dismissal was reversed with a direction that a permanent injunction be awarded. Pueblo of Santa Rosa v. Lane, 46 App. D. C. 411. The latter decision is challenged here on two grounds: One, that the plaintiff is not a legal entity and has no capacity to maintain the suit; and the other, that in any event, the defendant should not be subjected to a permanent injunction without according them an opportunity to answer the bill.

[1] The plaintiff is an Indian town whose inhabitants are a simple and uninformed people, measurably civilized and industrious, living in substantial houses and engaged in agricultural and pastoral pursuits. Its exis

Appeal from the Court of Appeals of the tence, practically as it is to-day, can be traced District of Columbia.

[blocks in formation]

back through the period of Mexican rule into that of the Spanish kings. It was known then, as now, as the pueblo of Santa Rosa, and its inhabitants were known then, as now, as Pueblo Indians. During the Spanish, as also the Mexican, dominion it enjoyed a large measure of local self-government and was recognized as having capacity to acquire and hold lands and other property. With much reason this might be regarded as enabling and entitling it to became a suitor for the purpose of enforcing or defending its property interests. See School District v. Wood, 13 Mass. 193, 198; Cooley's Const. Lim. (7th Ed.) p. 276; 1 Dillon, Munic. Corp. (5th Ed.) §§ 50, 64, 65. But our decision need not be put on that ground for there is another which arises out

*Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER delivered the of our own laws and is in itself sufficient. opinion of the Court.

This is a suit to enjoin the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the General Land Office from offering, listing, or disposing of certain lands in southern Arizona as public lands of the United States. The lands include the site of the pueblo of Santa Rosa and the surrounding territory,

After the Gadsden Treaty Congress made that region part of the territory of New Mexico and subjected it to "all the laws" of that territory. Act Aug. 4, 1854, c. 245, 10 Stat. 575. One of those laws provided that the inhabitants of any Indian pueblo having a grant or concession of lands from Spain or Mexico, such as is here claimed, should be a

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »