Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Fay v. Crozer

217 U.S. 455

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1910-05-02
Topic
general

Per Curiam: This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the'Southern District of West .Virginia, brought directly to this court, and as such falls within the rule that the. controversy must be substantial and the question open to discussion.. Tested by that rule, we think the writ of error must be dismissed on the authority of King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404; King v. West Virginia, 216 U.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Fay v. Crozer. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
14 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Supreme Court Review of State Court Judgments For the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction over a writ of error brought directly from a circuit court, the controversy must be substantial and the question presented must be open to discussion.
  2. Constitutional Law — Forfeiture of Land for Tax Delinquency A state constitutional provision forfeiting land for the owner's neglect to pay taxes does not violate the United States Constitution; there is no greater constitutional objection to forfeiture of land for five years' neglect to pay taxes than there is to a similar forfeiture effected by a statute of limitations for neglect to assert title against one by whom the former owner has been disseised.
  3. Constitutional Law — Validity of Forfeiture Provision Where a state constitutional forfeiture provision has previously been upheld notwithstanding that the statutory right to redeem was not coextensive with the forfeiture under the constitution, the state constitution must likewise be upheld when its validity is challenged on its own, apart from the statute.
  4. Civil Procedure — Waiver Whether particular facts constitute a forfeiture of land, when that question arises between a former owner and a claimant under the state, may be tried in a case between those parties.
Per Curiam:

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the'Southern District of West .Virginia, brought directly to this court, and as such falls within the rule that the. controversy must be substantial and the question open to discussion.. Tested by that rule, we think the writ of error must be dismissed on the authority of King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404; King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92. And see King v. Panther Lumber Company, 171 U. S. 437; Swann v. State, 188 U. S. 739, It is contended' that the question of the forfeiture of plaintiffs’ title under the constitution of West Virginia was hot ruled in those, cases, because- théy also involved the statute .of the State, referred to, while this case ' presents the validity of the forfeiture provision of the state constitution alone. But’ it was-pointed out in King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 100, that the right to redeem given by the statute was. not coextensive with the forfeiture under the state constitution, and yet the constitution was upheld,' as it was in ' King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404. I.t follows, therefore, that the státe constitution must be upheld in the present case. The . only hearing that could be necessary would be whether the facts- constitute a forfeiture,- and that question when it arises • between a.former owner and a claimant under the State can be tried in a case between..those parties, as it was here. There is no greater objection under the Constitution off the' United-• States to. the forfeiture of land- for five years’ neglect' to pay . taxes than "there is to a similar'-forfeiture by- the statute of limitations for.neglect to assert title against one. by whom-the ' former owner has been .disseised. We think, that the question, suggested is so plainly covered-by. the preceding cases that the writ of error must be dismissed.

It is so ordered,