CORKRAN OIL AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
v.
ARNAUDET

U.S. | 1905-11-13
No. 22
199 U.S. 182 Supreme Court of the United States (1905) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 50 L. Ed. 143 · 26 S. Ct. 41 · SCDB 1905-017 · 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1021
Cited by 20 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Corkran Oil and Development Company sought to challenge a Louisiana tax sale and claimed title to property under a federal act of Congress, but the Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of federal jurisdiction because the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision rested solely on the state constitution's Article 233, which validated tax titles after a three-year period had elapsed, rather than on any federal constitutional or statutory question. The Court held that state constitutional interpretation of property rights and tax sales does not present a federal question merely because a federal statute was cited by the plaintiff.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

having made the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the. court.

In the progress of the case in the trial court no Federal question as such was specifically raised, but when it reached the 'Supreme Court it was assigned for error that if article '233 of the constitution of Louisiana of 1898 had the effect of validating the tax sale to Henry Gellert it was in violation of Article 5 of the ^amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Counsel for plaintiff in error admit that this was a misreferenee, but contend that it was corrected by the petition for rehearing filed after judgment, which alleged a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but this came too late, unless the petition was entertained and the point passed on. Fullerton v. Texas, 196 U. S. 192. And this petition was denied without any observations.

The petition for the writ of error from this court and the assignment of errors herein set up Federal questions, but they form no part of the record on which to determine whether a Federal question was decided by the state court. Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462; Chapin v. Fye, 179 U. S. 127. And counsel further state “that in so far as the errors assigned are said to have violated the due process of law provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, they are not pressed.”

If it be conceded that plaintiff specially set up and claimed title to the land in controversy under the act of Congress of February 10, 1897, that would not be sufficient to give jurisdiction unless the state courts had decided against such title. But that was not the decision here. What was decided was that-the prescribed period having elapsed, article 233 of the Louisiana constitution operated as. the equivalent of legal title through the tax deed. The correctness of this conclusion depended on the proper construction and application of the provisions of the state constitution on the facts found, and not on the Constitution or laws of the United States.

The state constitution of 1898 was adopted and went into effect May 12, 1898. La. Const. 1898, p. 88. Article 233 provided:

“No sale of property for taxes shall be set aside for any cause, except on proof of dual assessment, or of payment of the taxes for which the property was sold prior to the date of sale, unless the proceeding to annul is instituted- . . . within three years from the adoption of this constitution, as to sales already made. . . .” Constitution 1898, p. 61.’

The record showed that defendants and their authors had been, since 1882, in quiet, peaceable possession of the property in question under a tax title, the validity' of which had not been impeached by any direct proceeding; that more than three years had elapsed before the institution of the present action since the adoption of the constitution (and more than that since the passage of the act of February 10, 1897, and the issue of the patent, November 22, 1897), and that at any time within such three years plaintiff or its 'authors might have instituted suit against defendants to annul the sale.

And the decision of the state Supreme Court that, in these circumstances, article 233 made good defendants’ title rested on a ground independent of the act of 1897, and involved no Federal question.

Writ of error dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

  • Am. Sur. Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1932)
    …ground of objection had been raised throughout the proceedings but solely as a matter of state law. There had been ample opportunity earlier to present the objection as one arising under the Fourteenth Amendment. Compare Corkran Oil Co. v. Arnaudet, 199 U. S. 182, 193; Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179, 181; Live Oak Water Users’ Assn. v. Railroad Commn., 269 U. S. 354, 357. This is not a case where, as in Saunders v. Shaw, 244 U. S. 317, 320, the federal claim arose from the unanticipated disposition…
  • Charleston Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Alderson, 324 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1945)
    …s that a state statute, as applied, is repugnant to the federal Constitution, treaties or laws. Loeber v. Schroeder, 149 U. S. 580, 585; Erie R. Co. v. Purdy, 185 U. S. 148, 153-4; Fullerton v. Texas, 196 U. S. 192, 193; Corkran Oil Co. v. Arnaudet, 199 U. S. 182, 193; Wall v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 256 U. S. 125, 126; Citizens National Bank v. Durr, 257 U. S. 99, 106; Thornton v. Mississippi, 323 U. S. 668; Carter v. General American Life Ins. Co., 323 U. S. 676; Putzier v. Richardson, 323 U. S. 677. An…
  • McKAY v. Kalyton, 204 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1907)

Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (28 total)

View all 28 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw