Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

thing to interfere with the constructive possession following the authentic act by which Brewer acquired his title.” Citing other decisions of the Supreme Court of Louisiana the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in error contends that the law is otherwise, a contention which is resisted with vigor by the learned counsel for the defendant in error. The decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana in this case upon a question of Louisiana law is conclusive upon this court. The Supreme Court of Louisiana held that no cause of action existed when Reed was appointed assignee in bankruptcy, and that neither the defendant nor any of its authors had made any pretense of possession of the land in controversy nor had they done anything to interfere with the constructive possession following the act by which Brewer acquired title. When the cause of action accrued to recover the land, was a question of state law, not depending upon the Federal statute. In deciding that no cause of action had accrued to Brewer available to the assignee, because the plaintiffs in error or those under whom they claimed were not in possession of the land, the court rested its decision wholly upon state law. The disposition of this question by the state court in the manner we have stated controlled the decision of the case and was sufficiently broad to support the judgment without involving the denial of any Federal right asserted by the plaintiff in error. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 112, 116.

It follows that the writ of error must be

Dismissed.

[blocks in formation]

MARSHALL, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, v. DYE.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA.

No. 401. Argued October 23, 1913.-Decided December 1, 1913.

Where a board of public officials is a continuing body, notwithstanding its change of personnel, as is the case with the State Board of Elections of Indiana, the suit will be continued against the successors in office of those who ceased to be members of the board. Murphy v. Utter, 186 U. S. 95.

The enforcement of the provision in Article IV, § 4 of the Constitution, that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, depends upon political and governmental action through the powers conferred on the Congress and not those conferred on the courts. Pacific Telephone Co. v. Oregon, 223 U. S. 118.

The claim that a judgment of the state court enjoining state officers

from acting under a state statute declared to be unconstitutional denies to the State a republican form of government on account of the interference of the judicial department with the legislative and executive departments, does not present a justiciable controversy concerning which the decision is reviewable by this court.

The right of this court to review judgments of the state courts is circumscribed within the limits of § 709, Rev. Stat., now § 237, Judicial Code. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86.

Only those having a personal, as distinguished from an official, interest can bring to this court for review the judgment of a state court on the ground that a Federal right has been denied. Smith v. Indiana, 191 U. S. 138.

Whether the State Board of Elections shall submit a new state con

stitution to the electors of a State in accordance with a state statute, concerns the members of the board in their official capacity only, and a judgment of the state court that they refrain from so doing concerns their official and not their personal rights and this court will not review such judgment.

Writ of error to review 99 N. E. Rep. 1, dismissed.

THE facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this court to review a judgment of the state court at the instance of

231 U. S.

Argument for Plaintiffs in Error.

a public official who has no personal interest in the litigation, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Frank S. Roby and Mr. Dan W. Simms, with whom Mr. Thomas M. Honan, Attorney General of the State of Indiana, Mr. James E. McCullough, Mr. Ward H. Watson, Mr. W. V. Stuart, Mr. E. P. Hammond, Mr. Sol H. Esarey and Mr. Elias D. Salsbury were on the brief, for plaintiffs in error:

Under Art. 3, § 1, constitution of Indiana of 1851, the judicial department of the government is without power to direct, coerce, or restrain the executive (in which is included the administrative) department of the government; nor may the former exercise any of the functions of the latter. State v. Noble, 118 Indiana, 350; Butler v. State, 97 Indiana, 373, 376; Frost v. Thomas, 26 Colorado, 222; Woods v. Sheldon, Governor, 69 N. W. Rep. 602; Sutherland v. Governor, 29 Michigan, 320; State v. Governor, 25 N. J. Law, 331, 349; State v. Lord, 28 Oregon, 498; Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475; Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50; Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497; Ex parte Ayres, 123 U. S. 443; Elliott v. Wiltz, 107 U. S. 711; Bates v. Taylor, 3 L. R. A. 316; Jonesboro v. Brown, 8 Baxt. 490; Vicksburg v. Lowry, 61 Mississippi, 102; In re Dennett, 32 Maine, 508; 2 High on Injunction, § 1323; 1 Blackstone, * 243; The Federalist, No. 43.

A judicial question cognizable by this court is involved in this case. For the distinction between judicial authority over justiciable controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions, see Pacific States Co. v. Oregon, 223 U. S. 118.

This court has jurisdiction of cases involving § 4, Art. IV of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475.

Courts of the State have no power or jurisdiction over the Governor of the State to enjoin official action in any

Argument for Plaintiffs in Error.

231 U.S.

case. Rice v. The Governor, 207 Massachusetts, 577, 579; People v. Bissell, 19 Illinois, 229; The Governor and Supreme Court, 243 Illinois, 9, 35; People v. Hatch, 33 Illinois, 9, 148; People v. Cullum, 100 Illinois, 472; State v. Stone, 120 Missouri, 428, 433; Vicksburg R. Co. v. Lowry, 61 Mississippi, 102, 103; Hawkins v. The Governor, 1 Arkansas, 570, 572, 575; State v. Bisbee, 17 Florida, 67, 78-83; State v. Warmoth, 22 La. Ann. 1; State v. Warmoth, 24 La. Ann. 351, 352; Rice v. Austin, 19 Minnesota, 103, 105; Secombe v. Kittleson, 29 Minnesota, 555, 561; Mauran v. Smith, 8 R. I. 192, 216; In re Dennett, 32 Maine, 508; State v. Inspectors, 114 Tennessee, 516; Bates v. Taylor, 87 Tennessee, 319, 325; Turnpike Co. v. Brown, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 490; Hovey v. State, 127 Indiana, 588; Beal v. Ray, 17 Indiana, 554, 558; State v. Huston, 27 Oklahoma, 606, 611. See also In re Opinion of Justices, 208 Massachusetts, 610; Blackstone's Comm. *243; State v. Towns, 8 Georgia, 360; Sutherland v. Governor, 29 Michigan, 320; Chamberlain v. Silby, 4 Minnesota, 309; State v. Governor, 25 N. J. Law, 331; Hartranft's Appeal, 85 Pa. St. 433.

The court had no power to interfere with the exercise of legislative discretion and its judgment is void. Beauchamp v. State, 6 Blackf. 299, 301; Fry v. State, 63 Indiana, 552, 559; Levey v. State, 161 Indiana, 251, 255; LaFayette Co. v. Geiger, 34 Indiana, 185, 198; State v. McClelland, 138 Indiana, 321, 335, 340; Hedderich v. State, 101 Indiana, 564, 567.

A power which is not distinctly either legislative, executive, or judicial, and is not by the constitution distinctly confided to a designated department of the government, must necessarily be under the control of the legislature. Cooley, Const. Law, p. 44; § 375, Jamieson's Const. Conventions (4th ed.), J. 362. See also People v. Hill, 36 L. R. A. 634, 636; State v. Henley, 39 L. R. A. 126, 132. If the courts can add to the reserved rights of the people they can take them away. If they can mend, they can

[ocr errors]

231 U.S.

Argument for Plaintiffs in Error.

mar. If they can remove the landmarks which they find established, they can obliterate them. Sharpless v. Mayor, 21 Pa. St. 147; State v. Menaugh, 151 Indiana, 260, 267; Cooley, Const. Lim. (6th ed.), p. 200; Burrows v. Delta Transp. Co., 106 Michigan, 582.

The judicial department of the government is without power to direct, coerce, or restrain the legislative department of the government; nor can the judicial department exercise any of the functions, or discharge, or prevent the discharge, of any of the functions of the latter. Cases supra and see § 1, Art. 3, Const. Indiana; Smith v. Myers, 109 Indiana, 1; Langenberg v. Decker, 131 Indiana, 471; Wright v. Defrees, 8 Indiana, 298, 303; Ex parte Griffiths, 118 Indiana, 83; Carr v. The State, 127 Indiana, 204, 208; Hovey v. Noble, 118 Indiana, 350; Ex parte France, 176 Indiana, 72; Hanly v. Sims, 175 Indiana, 345; State v. Haworth, 122 Indiana, 462; McComas v. Krug, 81 Indiana, 327; Wilson v. Jenkines, 72 N. Car. 5; Goddin v. Crump, 8 Leigh, 154; Burch v. Earhart, 7 Oregon, 58; Franklin v. State Board, 23 California, 177; People v. Pecheco, 27 California, 175; Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50; Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497; Alpers v. San Francisco, 32 Fed. Rep. 503; New Orleans Water Co. v. City of New Orleans, 164 U. S. 471; State v. Lord, 28 Oregon, 498; McChord v. Louisville &c. R. Co., 183 U. S. 483.

Under this decision a circuit court can confer more authority upon its bailiff than the Constitution has conferred upon both legislative and executive departments.

As to what constitutes a republican form of government, see The Federalist, No. 43; Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700; 1 Wilson's Works, p. 366.

The executive could have disregarded the mandate of the Supreme Court in this case, but he could not adequately repel the attack made upon the republican government of Indiana under form of judicial decision. See Smith v. Myers, 109 Indiana, 1, 9.

« PreviousContinue »