Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Hager

203 U.S. 109

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1906-11-05
Topic
general

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court. In this case an original action in mandamus was begun in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Kentucky. It was brought by the Bridge Company to compel the Auditor of Public Accounts for the State to issue his warrant on the state treasury for the amount of a franchise tax collected under authority of sections 4079 and 4080 of' the Kentucky Statutes. The return of the tax was asked upon the ground that it levied a burden on the interstate commerce business of the Bridge Company, pertaining exclusively to commerce between Kentucky and Ohio, and Was therefore repugnant to the Federal Constitution.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Hager. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
85 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Mandamus The circuit courts of the United States have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus in an original action brought for the purpose of securing relief by the writ; they may issue such writs only in aid of jurisdiction in cases already pending, where jurisdiction has been acquired by other means and other process, and this rule remains in force until Congress shall otherwise provide. 203 U.S. 109 (citing Knapp v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co., 197 U.S. 536)
  2. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Mandamus The absence of jurisdiction in the circuit courts to entertain an original action in mandamus is not affected by the circumstance that the relief sought concerns an alleged right secured by the Constitution of the United States. 203 U.S. 109
  3. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction Where a circuit court lacks jurisdiction of an original action in mandamus, it should dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction rather than determine the controversy upon the merits. 203 U.S. 109
COVINGTON BRIDGE CO.v. HAGER,203 U.S. 109(1906)
27 S.Ct. 24
COVINGTON AND CINCINNATI BRIDGE COMPANYv. HAGER.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
KENTUCKY.
No. 37.
Submitted October 17, 1906.
Decided November 5, 1906.
Circuit Courts of the United States, until Congress shall otherwise provide, have no power to issue a writ of mandamus in an original action for the purpose of securing relief by the writ, although the relief sought concerns an alleged right secured by the Constitution of the United States.
THE facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Shelley D. RouseandMr. Charlton B. Thompsonfor plaintiff in error:

As to power of the Circuit Court to issue the writ:

There was no way in which the lower court could enforce its jurisdiction except by a writ of mandamus because jurisdiction could not be entertained in a direct suit to recover the money, and so no judgment could have been recovered. Amendment XI to Const.;Coulterv.Weir, 127 F. 897.

The collection of the tax would not be enjoined by a Federal court purely because of its unconstitutionality, in the absence of a distinct equity.Arkansas Bldg. Associationv.Madden,175 U.S. 269;Pittsburg Ry. Co. v.Board of Public Works,172 U.S. 32.

A writ of mandamus may be issued by a Federal court wherever necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. U.S. Comp. Stat. § 716;Barber Asphalt Co. v.Morris, Judge, 132 F. 945;BathCountyv.Amy, 13 Wall. 244;Rosenbaumv.Bower,120 U.S. 450;Grahamv.Norton, 15 Wall. 166;Davisv.Corbin,112 U.S. 36;Riggsv.Johnson County, 6 Wall. 166;Heinev.Levee Com., 19 Wall. 655;Louisianav.Jumel,107 U.S. 711;Davenportv.City of Dodge,105 U.S. 237; Curtis on Jurisdiction of U.S. Courts, p. 168.Page 110Mr. N.B. Hays, Attorney General of the State of Kentucky,Mr. John W. RayandMr. C.H. Morris, for defendant in error:

A United States Circuit Court has no power, or original process, to mandamus a state auditor.Graham, Auditor, v.Norton, 15 Wall. 427.
MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the court.
In this case an original action in mandamus was begun in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Kentucky. It was brought by the Bridge Company to compel the Auditor of Public Accounts for the State to issue his warrant on the state treasury for the amount of a franchise tax collected under authority of sections 4079 and 4080 of the Kentucky Statutes. The return of the tax was asked upon the ground that it levied a burden on the interstate commerce business of the Bridge Company, pertaining exclusively to commerce between Kentucky and Ohio, and was therefore repugnant to the Federal Constitution.

The Auditor appeared by counsel, and, by general demurrer, raised the question of the sufficiency of the allegations of the petition, and by special demurrer challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the action. The Circuit Court, passing the question of jurisdiction, held that levying the tax in question did not violate the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, as it was a tax upon property and not upon the business of the company, sustained the general demurrer and dismissed the petition.

We are of the opinion that the court below had no jurisdiction of this action. It has been too frequently decided in this court to require the citation of the cases that the Circuit Courts of the United States have no jurisdiction in original cases of mandamus, and have only power to issue such writs in aid of their jurisdiction in cases already pending, wherein jurisdiction has been acquired by other means and by other process.Page 111

Many of these cases are collected in 4 Federal Statutes Annotated, 503.

The question was before this court recently inKnappv.Lake Shore Michigan Southern Railway Co.,197 U.S. 536, an action by the Interstate Commerce Commission, by petition for mandamus in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio, against the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company to compel it to file reports required by the act to regulate interstate commerce. It was argued for the Government that while decisions of this court under the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, c. 20,1 Stat. 73, and the act of March 3, 1875,18 Stat. 470, had been construed to confer no original jurisdiction in mandamus in the United States courts, yet the act of March 3, 1887,24 Stat. 552, c. 373, in view of the modern development in proceedings by mandamus, should be held to confer the jurisdiction upon the Circuit Courts to entertain original suits in mandamus. The contention was rejected and the prior cases adhered to.

We deem it settled beyond controversy, until Congress shall otherwise provide, that Circuit Courts of the United States have no power to issue a writ of mandamus in an original action brought for the purpose of securing relief by the writ, and this result is not changed because the relief sought concerns an alleged right secured by the Constitution of the United States.

It follows that the Circuit Court should have dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction instead of determining it upon the merits. The judgment dismissing the petition is therefore modified so as to show that the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and, as thus modified, the judgment isAffirmed.Page 112