COVINGTON AND CINCINNATI BRIDGE COMPANY
v.
HAGER

U.S. | 1906-11-05
No. 37
203 U.S. 109 Supreme Court of the United States (1906) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 51 L. Ed. 111 · 27 S. Ct. 24 · SCDB 1906-007 · 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1570
Cited by 181 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

The Covington and Cincinnati Bridge Company sought a writ of mandamus in federal Circuit Court to compel Kentucky's state auditor to refund a franchise tax, arguing the tax violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that Circuit Courts of the United States lack original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, regardless of whether constitutional rights are implicated, and therefore the case should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction rather than decided on its merits.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Day

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case an original action in mandamus was begun in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Kentucky. It was brought by the Bridge Company to compel the Auditor of Public Accounts for the State to issue his warrant on the state treasury for the amount of a franchise tax collected under authority of sections 4079 and 4080 of' the Kentucky Statutes. The return of the tax was asked upon the ground that it levied a burden on the interstate commerce business of the Bridge Company, pertaining exclusively to commerce between Kentucky and Ohio, and Was therefore repugnant to the Federal Constitution.

The Auditor appeared by counsel, and, by general demurrer, raised the question of the sufficiency of the allegations of the petition, and by special demurrer challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the action. The Circuit Court, passing the question of jurisdiction, held that levying the tax in question did not violate the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, as it was a tax upon property and not upon the business of the company, sustained the general demurrer and dismissed the petition.

We are of the opinion that the court below had no jurisdiction of this action. It has been too frequently decided in this court to require the citation of the cases that the Circuit Courts of the United States have no jurisdiction in original cases of mandamus, and have only power to issue such writs in aid of their jurisdiction in eases already pending, wherein jurisdiction has been acquired by other means and by other process. Many of these cases are collected in 4 Federal Statutes Annotated, 503.

The question was before this court recently in Knapp v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co., 197 U. S. 536, an action by the Interstate Commerce Commission, by'petition for. mandamus in the Circuit'Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio, against the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company to compel it to file reports required by the act to regulate interstate commerce. It was argued for the Government that while decisions of this court under the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, c. 20, 1 Stat. 73, and the act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470, had been construed to confer no original jurisdiction in mandamus in the United States courts, yet the act of March 3, *1887, 24 Stat. 552, c. 373, in view of the modern development in proceedings by mandamus, should -be 'held to confer the jurisdiction upon the Circuit Courts to entertain original suits in manclariius. The contention was rejected and the prior cases adhered to.

We deem it settled beyond controversy, until Congress shall otherwise provide, that Circuit Courts of the United States have no power to issue a writ of mandamus in-an original action brought for the purpose of securing, relief by the writ, and this result is not changed because the relief sought concerns an-alleged right secured-by the-Constitution of the United States.

It follows that the Circuit Court should have dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction instead of determining-it upon the merits. The judgment'dismissing the petition is therefore modified so as to show that the case was dismissed foi' want of jurisdiction, and, as thus modified, the judgment is

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (48 total)

  • United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1914)
  • McCABE v. Atchison, 235 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1914)
  • Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
    …merely permits a court to issue writs in aid of jurisdiction acquired to grant some other form of relief. See Stern v. South Chester Tube Co., 390 U.S. 606, 608, 88 S.Ct. 1332, 1333, 20 L.Ed.2d 177 (1968); Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Hager, 203 U.S. 109, 110, 27 S.Ct. 24, 51 L.Ed. 111 (1906). Because the District Court has no present or future jurisdiction over agency actions assigned by statute to appellate court review, it can contemplate no exercise of jurisdiction that mandamus might aid.33 T…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 48 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (11 total)

View all 11 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw