Opinion · United States District Court
NORTHPORT POWER LIGHT CO. v. HARTLEY, (W.D.Wash. 1929)
35 F.2d 199
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States District Court
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1929-10-14
- Topic
- general
NORTHPORT POWER LIGHT CO. v. HARTLEY, (W.D.Wash. 1929) 35 F.2d 199 NORTHPORT POWER LIGHT CO. v. HARTLEY, Governor of Washington, et al. No. 402.United States District Court, W.D. Washington,S.D.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed NORTHPORT POWER LIGHT CO. v. HARTLEY, (W.D.Wash. 1929). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
NORTHPORT POWER LIGHT CO. v. HARTLEY, (W.D.Wash. 1929)
35 F.2d 199
NORTHPORT POWER LIGHT CO. v. HARTLEY, Governor of Washington, et al.
No. 402.
United States District Court, W.D. Washington,
S.D.
October 14, 1929.
Plaintiff, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Washington, a majority of whose issued capital stock is owned by an alien corporation, alleging that section33of article2of the Constitution of the state of Washington violates, as to plaintiff, provisions of the Constitution of the United States, prays that the defendants, the Governor and Attorney General of such state, be enjoined from bringing any proceeding for the purpose of enforcing such section, or certainPage 200of the enactments of the Legislature for the purpose of carrying out such constitutional provision. This cause was heard upon motion for interlocutory injunction and motion to dismiss the bill of complaint.
It is alleged in the bill of complaint that the plaintiff has been, since the year 1917, the owner of certain right of way easements and franchises in the state of Washington on which rights of way there have been constructed its transmission lines and power stations for the purpose of conveying electrical energy from a point north of the international boundary line in British Columbia to points in the state of Washington, which right of way easements and franchises are necessary for that purpose; that plaintiff purchases all of its electrical energy from the West Kootenay Power Light Company, Limited, a corporation of Canada, and transmits the same from British Columbia over transmission lines to consumers in the town of Northport in the state of Washington; that plaintiff has a franchise from such town, authorizing it to sell and distribute electrical energy to the inhabitants thereof; and that it has, at all times since 1917, been engaged in selling and distributing electrical current generated in the Dominion of Canada and transmitted across the international boundary Line into the state of Washington for the purpose of such sale and distribution.
Section33, art.2, of the Constitution of the state of Washington (1 Remington's Compiled Statutes of Washington 1922, p. 68), provides:
"Sec. 33.Ownership of Lands by Aliens, Prohibited —Exceptions. — The ownership of lands by aliens, other than those who in good faith have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, is prohibited in this state, except where acquired by inheritance, under mortgage or in good faith in the ordinary course of justice in the collection of debts; and all conveyances of lands hereafter made to any alien directly, or in trust for such alien, shall be void: Provided, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to lands containing valuable deposits of minerals, metals, iron, coal, or fire clay, and the necessary land for mills and machinery to be used in the development thereof and the manufacture of the products therefrom. Every corporation, the majority of the capital stock of which is owned by aliens, shall be considered an alien for the purposes of this prohibition."
Section 1, chapter 50, Session Laws of 1921, state of Washington (section 10581, Remington's Compiled Statutes of Washington 1922, Vol. 3) provides:
"* * * (a) `Alien' does not include an alien who has in good faith declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, but does include all other aliens and all corporations and other organized groups of persons a majority of whose capital stock is owned or controlled by aliens or a majority of whose members are aliens.
"(b) `Land' does not include lands containing valuable deposits of minerals, metals, iron, coal or fire clay or the necessary land for mills and machinery to be used in the development thereof and the manufacture of the products therefrom, but does include every other kind of land and every interest therein and right to the control, possession, use, enjoyment, rents, issues or profits thereof except a mortgage and except a right to the possession, use or enjoyment of land for a period of not more than ten years for a purpose for which an alien is accorded the use of land by a treaty between the United States and the country whereof he is a citizen.
* * * * * *
"(f) Ownership of or title to land acquired by inheritance or in good faith either under mortgage or in the ordinary course of justice in the collection of debts, or acquired by a female citizen afterwards expatriated by marriage to an alien, is excluded."
Section 2, chapter 50, Session Laws of 1921, state of Washington (section 10582, Remington's Compiled Statutes of Washington 1922, vol. 3), provides:
"* * * An alien shall not own land or take or hold title thereto. No person shall take or hold land or title to land for an alien. Land now held by or for aliens in violation of the Constitution of the state is forfeited to and declared to be the property of the state. Land hereafter conveyed to or for the use of aliens in violation of the Constitution or of this act shall thereby be forfeited to and become the property of the state."
Section 8, chapter 50, Session Laws of 1921, state of Washington (section 10588, Remington's Compiled Statutes of Washington 1922, vol. 3), provides:
"* * * It shall be the duty of the Attorney General and of the prosecuting attorneys of the several counties to enforce this act, and of the Attorney General to direct and control its enforcement."
Section 9, chapter 50, Session Laws of 1921, state of Washington (section 10589, Remington's Compiled Statutes of Washington 1922, vol. 3), provides:Page 201
"* * * Property forfeited to the state by this act shall inure to the permanent common school fund and be managed and disposed of accordingly."
It is alleged in the complaint that the defendants have threatened to and will enforce said act against the plaintiff, because of the fact that the majority of the capital stock of the plaintiff corporation is owned by an alien, and will forfeit or attempt to forfeit all of said leasehold interests and franchises, and the whole thereof, and all the improvements thereon, and will attempt to escheat the same to the state of Washington, by the institution and prosecution of a suit at law in the courts of Washington, as a result of which plaintiff will suffer great and irreparable loss and damage.
John H. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John A. Homer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.
Plaintiff cites: Section 266, Judicial Code (28 USCA § 380); section33, art.2, Constitution of the state of Washington; section 4, chapter 50, Session Laws of 1921, state of Washington (section 10582, Remington's Compiled Statutes of Washington 1922, vol. 3); section 8, art. 1, Constitution of the United States; section 10, art. 1, Constitution of the United States; section 1, Amend. 14, Constitution of the United States; Commerce Treaty of 1815 between United States and Great Britain (8 U.S. Stat. 228); Smyth v. Ames,169 U.S. 466,478,18 S. Ct. 418,42 L. Ed. 819,838; Risty v. C., R.I. P.R. Co.,270 U.S. 378,388,46 S. Ct. 236,70 L. Ed. 642-650; Terrace v. Thompson,263 U.S. 197,214,44 S. Ct. 15,68 L. Ed. 255,274; Walla Walla Water Co. v. Walla Walla,172 U.S. 1,12,19 S. Ct. 77,43 L. Ed. 341,346; Adams v. Tanner,244 U.S. 590,592,37 S. Ct. 662,61 L. Ed. 1336,1342, L.R.A. 1917F, 1163, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; Truax v. Raich,239 U.S. 33,37,36 S. Ct. 7,60 L. Ed. 131,133, L.R.A. 1916D, 545, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; Rast v. Van Deman Lewis Co.,240 U.S. 342,355,36 S. Ct. 370,60 L. Ed. 679,686, L.R.A. 1917A, 421, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 455; Kennington v. Palmer,255 U.S. 100,41 S. Ct. 303,65 L. Ed. 528; Ex parte Young,209 U.S. 126,153,28 S. Ct. 441,52 L. Ed. 714,730, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 932, 14 Ann. Cas. 764; Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydell,278 U.S. 1,49 S. Ct. 1,73 L. Ed. 147; Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway,49 S. Ct. 256, 73 L. Ed. ___; Liggett Co. v. Baldridge,278 U.S. 105,49 S. Ct. 57,73 L. Ed. 204; State ex rel. Dunbar v. Shokuta,131 Wn. 291,293,230 P. 166; State v. Taka Hirabayashi,139 Wn. 696,699,246 P. 577; Siler v. Louisville N.R. Co.,213 U.S. 175,195,29 S. Ct. 451,53 L. Ed. 753,757; Ohio Tax Cases,232 U.S. 576,586,34 S. Ct. 372,58 L. Ed. 738,743; Greene v. Louisville I.R. Co.,244 U.S. 499,508,37 S. Ct. 673,61 L. Ed. 1280,1286, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 88; United Fuel Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission,278 U.S. 300,49 S. Ct. 150,73 L. Ed. 390; City of Dayton v. City Ry. Co. (C.C.A.)16 F.2d 401,403; State v. Natsuhara,136 Wn. 437,444,240 P. 557; State v. Motomatsu,139 Wn. 639,247 P. 1032; 19 Corpus Juris, 865, 866, and cases cited in notes 50, 51; 9 R.C.L. 737; Branan v. Wimsatt,54 App. D.C. 374, 298 F. 833, 836; Stovall v. Coggins Granite Co.,116 Ga. 376,42 S.E. 723,724; Ernst v. Allen et al.,55 Utah, 272,184 P. 827,829; Waller v. Hildebrecht,295 Ill. 116,128 N.E. 807,809; Kershaw v. Burns,91 S.C. 129,74 S.E. 378,379; 33 Cyc. 169; Reichenbach v. Washington Short Line R. Co.,10 Wn. 357,38 P. 1126; Knapp v. Crawford,16 Wn. 524,48 P. 261; Spokane v. Colby,16 Wn. 610,48 P. 248; Pacific Iron Works v. Bryant Lumber Shingle Mill Co.,60 Wn. 502,111 P. 578; Neitzel v. Spokane International R. Co.,65 Wn. 100,117 P. 864, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 522; Boatman v. Lasley,23 Ohio St. 614; Stockdale v. Yerden,220 Mich. 444,190 N.W. 225; State ex rel. Winston v. Morrison,18 Wn. 664,52 P. 228; Myers v. Arthur,135 Wn. 583,238 P. 899; Salisbury v. Alskog,144 Wn. 88,256 P. 1030; Humphrey v. Krutz,77 Wn. 152,157,137 P. 806; Columbus, etc., Co. v. Columbus,249 U.S. 399,39 S. Ct. 349,63 L. Ed. 669,676, 6 A.L.R. 1648; section12, art.1, Constitution of the State of Washington; Thompson on Corporations (3d Ed.) §§ 2184, 2185, 2186, and 2188; Frost v. Railroad Commission,271 U.S. 583,596,46 S. Ct. 605,70 L. Ed. 1101,1106, 47 A.L.R. 457; Williams v. Standard Oil Co.,278 U.S. 235,49 S. Ct. 115,73 L. Ed. 287, 60 A.L.R. 596; Quaker City Cab Co. v. Penn.,277 U.S. 389,400,48 S. Ct. 553,72 L. Ed. 927,929; Public Utilities Comm. v. Attleboro Steam E. Co.,273 U.S. 83,86,47 S. Ct. 294,71 L. Ed. 549,552; Simpson v. Shepard,230 U.S. 352,396,33 S. Ct. 729,57 L. Ed. 1511,1540, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1151, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1-240,6 L. Ed. 23; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Penn.,114 U.S. 196,204,5 S. Ct. 826,29 L. Ed. 158,162; Penn. v. West Virginia,262 U.S. 553,596,43 S. Ct. 658,67 L. Ed. 1117,1132,Page 20232 A.L.R. 300; Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant,257 U.S. 282,291,42 S. Ct. 106,66 L. Ed. 239,244; Shafer v. Farmers' Grain Co.,268 U.S. 196,200,45 S. Ct. 481,69 L. Ed. 909,915; Foster-Fountain Pack. Co. v. Haydel,278 U.S. 1,49 S. Ct. 1,73 L. Ed. 147; Anderson v. Shipowners' Ass'n,272 U.S. 359,363,47 S. Ct. 125,71 L. Ed. 298,301; Hammer v. Dagenhart,247 U.S. 251,269,38 S. Ct. 529,62 L. Ed. 1101,1105, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724; South Carolina v. Georgia,93 U.S. 4,23 L. Ed. 782; Mondou v. N.Y., etc., R. Co.,223 U.S. 1,47,49,32 S. Ct. 169,56 L. Ed. 327,345,346, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 44; Smith v. Alabama,124 U.S. 465,473,8 S. Ct. 564,31 L. Ed. 508,510; Di Santo v. Penn.,273 U.S. 34,37,47 S. Ct. 267,71 L. Ed. 524,526; Penn. Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission,252 U.S. 23,27,40 S. Ct. 279,64 L. Ed. 434,441; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Ill. C.R. Co.,215 U.S. 452,474,30 S. Ct. 155,54 L. Ed. 280,289; Ozark Pipe Corp. v. Monier,266 U.S. 555,565,45 S. Ct. 184,69 L. Ed. 439,443; Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. Denney (Wash.)278 P. 419,422; Mich. Public Utilities Comm. v. Duke,266 U.S. 570,45 S. Ct. 191,69 L. Ed. 445, 36 A.L.R. 1105; Philadelphia, etc., S.S. Co. v. Penn.,122 U.S. 326,7 S. Ct. 1118,30 L. Ed. 1200; Lemke v. Farmers' Grain Co.,258 U.S. 50,59,42 S. Ct. 244,66 L. Ed. 458,464; Meyer v. Neb.,262 U.S. 390,400,43 S. Ct. 625,67 L. Ed. 1042,1045, 29 A.L.R. 1446; Washington ex rel. v. Kuykendall,275 U.S. 207,211,48 S. Ct. 41,72 L. Ed. 241,245; Hastings v. Anacortes Packing Co.,29 Wn. 224,230,69 P. 776; 1 Malloy's Comp., p. 624 (1815 Treaty between United States and Great Britain); Ohio ex rel. Clarke v. Deckebach,274 U.S. 392,47 S. Ct. 630,71 L. Ed. 1115; Jordan v. Tashire,278 U.S. 123,49 S. Ct. 47,73 L. Ed. 214; Terrace v. Thompson,263 U.S. 197,217,44 S. Ct. 15,68 L. Ed. 255,275; Webb v. O'Brien,263 U.S. 313,322,44 S. Ct. 112,68 L. Ed. 318,321; South Carolina v. United States,199 U.S. 437,451,26 S. Ct. 110,59 L. Ed. 261,265, 4 Ann. Cas. 737; Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan,229 U.S. 288,314,33 S. Ct. 867,57 L. Ed. 1190,1203; Dillon v. Gloss,256 U.S. 368,373,41 S. Ct. 510,65 L. Ed. 994,996; Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kan. Railway Co.,135 U.S. 641,656,10 S. Ct. 965,34 L. Ed. 295.
Defendants cite: Section 384, United States Code; Boise Artesian Hot Cold Water Co. v. Boise City,213 U.S. 276,29 S. Ct. 426,53 L. Ed. 796; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Benedict,229 U.S. 481,33 S. Ct. 942,57 L. Ed. 1288; Dalton Adding Machine Co. v. State Corporation Commission of Virginia,236 U.S. 699,35 S. Ct. 480,59 L. Ed. 797; Cavanaugh v. Looney,248 U.S. 453,39 S. Ct. 142,63 L. Ed. 354; section33, art.2, Constitution of the State of Washington; chapter 50, Session Laws of 1921, state of Washington; Humphrey v. Krutz,77 Wn. 152, at page 157,137 P. 806; Cook v. C., B. Q.R. Co.,40 Iowa 451; Goodrich v. Burbank, 12 Allen (Mass.) at page 460, 90 Am. Dec. 161; Standard Oil Co. v. Buchi,72 N.J. Eq. 492,66 A. 427; Tide Water Pipe Co. v. Bell,280 Pa. 104,124 A. 351,40 A.L.R. 1516; Terrace v. Thompson,263 U.S. 197,44 S. Ct. 15,68 L. Ed. 255; 1 R.C.L. 806; Webb. v. O'Brien,263 U.S. 313,322,44 S. Ct. 112,68 L. Ed. 318.
Before DIETRICH, Circuit Judge, and BOURQUIN and CUSHMAN, District Judges.
It in no way has been made to appear that the remedy at law afforded plaintiff in such a proceeding is not adequate. The determination of the question is controlled by Boise Artesian Hot Cold Water Co. v. Boise City,213 U.S. 276,29 S. Ct. 426,53 L. Ed. 796, and Cavanaugh et al. v. Looney,248 U.S. 453, at page 456,39 S. Ct. 142,143,63 L. Ed. 354, in which latter case it was said: "Nothing indicates that any objections to the validity of the statute could not be presented in an orderly way before the state court where defendants intended to institute condemnation proceedings."
It is true that the jurisdiction of the District Court was upheld in Terrace et al. v. Thompson,263 U.S. 197,44 S. Ct. 15,68 L. Ed. 255, and in Webb v. O'Brien, 263 U.S. at page 313,44 S. Ct. 112,68 L. Ed. 318; but in each of those cases an interest in the real estate had not yet been acquired by the alien. In the first of the last-cited decisions it is also stated, at page 212, of 263 U.S. (44 S. Ct. 16): "* * * And it is alleged that the defendant, as Attorney General, hasPage 203threatened to and will * * * if they enter into such lease, * * * prosecute the appellants criminally for violation of the act; that the act is so drastic and the penalties attached to its violation are so great that neither of the appellants may make the lease even to test the constitutionality of the act; and that, unless the court shall determine its validity in this suit, the appellants will be compelled to submit to it, whether valid or invalid, and thereby will be deprived of their property without due process of law and denied the equal protection of the laws."1
There is no allegation in the complaint now before the court in any way equivalent to the above. The motion for an interlocutory injunction is denied. The defendants' motion to dismiss the bill of complaint is granted.Page 203
- The following language appears in the case of Webb v. O'Brien, at page 321 of the Supreme Court reports, volume 263 (44 S. Ct. 113), also cited in the opinion:
"They [appellants, plaintiffs below] allege * * * that the Attorney General and district attorney have threatened to and will enforce the act against them if they execute the contract, and will forfeit or attempt to forfeit the land by an escheat proceeding, and will prosecute them criminally for violating the act. They aver that the act is so drastic, and the penalties for its violation are so great, that neither of them may execute the contract even for the purpose of testing its validity and its application thereto, and that, unless the court shall determine the validity of the act and its application, they will be compelled to submit to it, whether valid or invalid, and to the appellants' interpretation of it, and so be deprived of their property without due process of law and denied the equal protection of the laws in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment." ↩