Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Porter v. Investors Syndicate

Porter v. Invs. Syndicate, 287 U.S. 346 (1932)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1932-12-05
Topic
general

Mr. Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. In this cause, reversing the decree of the United States District Court, we held [286 U. S. 461] that the appellee had failed to exhaust the administrative remedy afforded by the Montana statute, and that the federal court was therefore without jurisdiction as a court of equity to enjoin enforcement of the State Auditor’s order. The appellee has presented a petition for rehearing which concedes the correctness of our ruling that the statute gives a remedy partly administrative in character, by suit in the state district court, but contends that by this grant the act violates Article IV, § 1, of the Montana Constitution, which is: “ The powers of the government of' this State are divided into three distinct departments: The Legislative, *347 Executive, and Judicial, and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.” As this question was not briefed or argued when the ease was first heard we granted a reargument; and the cause has again been presented on this point.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Porter v. Investors Syndicate. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
14 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — Separation of Powers A state constitutional provision dividing government into legislative, executive, and judicial departments and barring each from exercising powers properly belonging to the others does not preclude the conferral on state district courts of administrative powers connected with and ancillary to their judicial functions. 287 U.S. 346, 347
  2. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Construction of State Constitution Where a state supreme court has not adjudicated the question, a federal court is reluctant to construe a state constitution, but when its decision requires resolution of an alleged conflict between a state statute and the state constitution, it must pass upon the question. 287 U.S. 346, 348
  3. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — State Law as Binding Authority An adjudication by the state supreme court construing the state constitution would bind the federal courts. 287 U.S. 346, 348
PORTERv. INVESTORS SYNDICATE,287 U.S. 346(1932)
53 S.Ct. 132
PORTER, AUDITOR,v. INVESTORS SYNDICATE.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MONTANA. (ON REHEARING.)
No. 627 (October Term, 1931).
Reargued November 14, 1932.
Decided December 5, 1932.
Section 1 of ArticleIVof the Montana Constitution, dealing with the separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers, does not preclude the exercise by the state district courts of the administrative powers which were considered upon the former decision of this case. P. 347.
UPON rehearing of the case reported in286 U.S., p. 461. The
decision previously made is adhered to.
Mr. T.H. MacDonaldfor appellant.Mr. M.S. Gunnfor appellee.
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this cause, reversing the decree of the United States District Court, we held [286 U.S. 461] that the appellee had failed to exhaust the administrative remedy afforded by the Montana statute, and that the federal court was therefore without jurisdiction as a court of equity to enjoin enforcement of the State Auditor's order.

The appellee has presented a petition for rehearing which concedes the correctness of our ruling that the statute gives a remedy partly administrative in character, by suit in the state district court, but contends that by this grant the act violates ArticleIV, §1, of the Montana Constitution, which is:

"The powers of the government of this State are divided into three distinct departments: The Legislative,Page 347Executive, and Judicial, and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted."

As this question was not briefed or argued when the case was first heard we granted a reargument; and the cause has again been presented on this point.

The statute plainly affords a remedy which, though in certain respects judicial, is in others administrative. The courts of Montana have not passed upon its constitutionality as affected by the quoted section of the fundamental law of the State. Such expressions of the Supreme Court as have been brought to our attention indicate that Article IV, § 1, does not forbid the conference on the state district courts of administrative powers in connection with and ancillary to their judicial functions.O'Neillv.Yellowstone Irrigation Dist.,44 Mont. 492;121 P. 283;Statev.Johnson,75 Mont. 240,249;243 P. 1073. CompareState ex rel. Kelloggv.District Court,13 Mont. 370;34 P. 298;Hillisv.Sullivan,48 Mont. 320;137 P. 392.

An adjudication of the question by the state supreme court would bind us,Gulf C. S.F. Ry. Co. v.Dennis,224 U.S. 503. In the absence of such decision we are reluctant to construe a state constitution,Louisville N.R. Co. v.Garrett,231 U.S. 298; but as our decision requires that the alleged conflict of state statute and state constitution be resolved we must pass upon it.Southern Ry. Co. v.Watts,260 U.S. 519,522. In view of the Montana cases to which reference has been made, we are not convinced that the statute is offensive to the Montana Constitution, and adhere to the judgment heretofore entered.Page 348