Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Northern Pacific Railroad v. Walker

148 U.S. 391

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1893-04-03
Topic
general

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court. ■ This was a bill filed in the Circuit Court of the Hnited States for the District of North Dakota, November 21, 1890, by the *392 Northern Pacific Bailroad Company against the county auditors of twelve counties of that State, praying for a decree adjudging certain assessments and taxes levied upon lands in each of said counties to be illegal and void and a cloud upon complainant’s title, and that defendants and- each of them be restrained from selling or attempting to sell said lands or any portion thereof,- or issuing any tax certificates therefor. The ■ cáse proceeded to a decree, dismissing the bill for want of éqúity, whereupon it was carried by appeal to the Circuit ’ Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Certain questions or propositions of- law, concerning which that court desired the instruction of the Supreme Court for a proper decision of the .case, were certified to this court, and argument having been had upon the certificate, we directed a certiorari to issue requiring the whole record and cause to be sent up for consideration. This has been done, and we find upon examination that the case comes directly within Walter v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Northern Pacific Railroad v. Walker. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
28 opinions
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD v. WALKER,148 U.S. 391(1893)
13 S.Ct. 650
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANYv. WALKER
CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT.
No. 1124.
Argued January 31, February 1, 1893.
Decided April 3, 1893.
FollowingWalterv.Northeastern Railroad Company,147 U.S. 370, it is again held that a Circuit Court of the United States has no jurisdiction over a bill in equity to enjoin the collection of taxes from a railroad company, when distinct assessments, in separate counties, no one of which amounts to $2000, and for which, in case of payment under protest, separate suits must be brought to recover back the amounts paid, are joined in the bill and make an aggregate of over $2000. As, perhaps, by amendment this bill might be retained as to some one of the defendants, this court declines to dismiss the bill, and reverses the judgment, and remands the cause to the court below for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Frederick M. DudleyandMr. James McNaughtfor appellant.Mr. S.L. Glaspell, (with whom wasMr. Edgar W. Campon the brief,) for appellees.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a bill filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of North Dakota, November 21, 1890, by thePage 392Northern Pacific Railroad Company against the county auditors of twelve counties of that State, praying for a decree adjudging certain assessments and taxes levied upon lands in each of said counties to be illegal and void and a cloud upon complainant's title, and that defendants and each of them be restrained from selling or attempting to sell said lands or any portion thereof, or issuing any tax certificates therefor. The case proceeded to a decree, dismissing the bill for want of equity, whereupon it was carried by appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Certain questions or propositions of law, concerning which that court desired the instruction of the Supreme Court for a proper decision of the case, were certified to this court, and argument having been had upon the certificate, we directed acertiorarito issue requiring the whole record and cause to be sent up for consideration. This has been done, and we find upon examination that the case comes directly withinWalterv.Northeastern Railroad,147 U.S. 370.

The record does not show that the amount of the assessments and taxes, forming the subject of the litigation, levied in either or all of the counties, exceeded the sum of $2000; and even if this had been so as to the aggregate, the defendants could not have been joined in a single suit, and the jurisdiction thus been sustained. Upon the face of the record, therefore, the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction, (act of March 3, 1887,24 Stat. 552, c. 373; act of August 13, 1888,25 Stat. 433, c. 866,) but as perhaps by amendment the bill might be retained as to some one of the defendants, we will not direct its dismissal.In pursuance of section 10 of the Judiciary Act of March 3,1891,26 Stat. 829, c. 517, the decree of the Circuit Court isreversed at the costs of the appellant, and the cause remanded tothat court with a direction for further proceedings in conformitywith this opinion.Page 393