BRAXTON COUNTY COURT
v.
THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. THE STATE TAX COMMISSIONERS

U.S. | 1908-01-27
No. 124
208 U.S. 192 Supreme Court of the United States (1908) Caution
Also reported at: 52 L. Ed. 450 · 28 S. Ct. 275 · 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1432 · SCDB 1907-063
Cited by 50 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

Braxton County Court, acting in its official capacity as a representative of the state tax commission, lacked standing to appeal to the Supreme Court a state court decision upholding tax legislation, because the county's interest in the case was official rather than personal. The Court held that a party seeking Supreme Court review of a state court judgment on federal constitutional grounds must have a personal interest adversely affected by the decision, not merely an official duty to enforce the challenged law.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Brewer,

Mr. Justice Brewer,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.'

Speaking generally, the regulation of municipal corporations is a matter peculiarly within the domain of state control. The taxing body, the taxing district and the limits of taxation are determinable' by the legislature of the State. Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 78; Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506, and cases cited in the opinion; Williams v. Eggleston, 170 U. S. 304, 310; 1 Dillon on Municipal Corporations (4th ed., p. 52), and following. True, the legislature may sometimes, by restrictive legislation in respect to taxes, seek to prevent the payment by a municipality of its contract obligations, and in such a case the courts will enforce the protective clauses of the Federal Constitution against any state legislation impairing the obligation of a contract. In other words, no State can .in respect to any matter set at naught the paramount provisions of the National Constitution;

Again, that the act of the State is charged to be in violation of the National Constitution, and that the charge is not frivolous, does not always give this court jurisdiction to review the judgment of a state court; The party raising the question of constitutionality and invoking our jurisdiction must be interested in and affected adversely by the decision of the state court sustaining the act, and the interest must be of a personal and not of an official nature. Clark v. Kansas City, 176 U. S. 114, 118; Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 276, 283; Smith v. Indiana, 191 U. S. 138, 148. 'In the latter case suit was brought in the state court against a county auditor to test the constitutionality of the exemption law of Indiana, which was claimed to.be in conflict with the Federal Constitution. The .decision of the state court having been in favor of the act, the auditor brought the case here. Mr. Justice Brown, delivering the opinion of the court, cited the following cases: Tyler v. Registration -Court Judges, 179 U. S. 405; Clark v. Kansas City, 176. U. S. 114; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51; Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S. 276; Ludeling v. Chaffee, 143 U. S. 301; Giles v. Little, 134 U. S. 645; and said (191 U. S. 148):

“These authorities control the present case. It is evident that-the auditor, had no personal interest in the litigation. He had certain duties as a public officer to perform. The performance-of those duties was of no personal benefit to him. Their non-performance was equally so. He neither gained nor lost anything by invoking the advice of the Supreme Court as to the-proper action he should take. He was testing the constitutionality of the law purely in the interest of third persons, viz.,. the taxpayers, - and in-this particular case the case is analogous to that of Caffrey v. Oklahoma, 177 U. S. 346. We think the interest of an appellant in this court should be a personal and not an official interest, and that the defendant, having sought the advice of the courts of his own.State in'his official capacity, should be content to abide by their décisions.”

These decisions control this case and compel a dismissal of the writ of error, and

It is so ordered.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (21 total)

  • State v. The Bd. of Equalizers of the State of Fla., 84 Fla. 592 (Fla. 1922)
    …hird persone.” Smith v. Indiana, 191 U. S. 138, text 148, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 51; Governor of State of Indiana v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 92; 18 R. C. L. 113; Braxton County Court v. State of West Virginia ex rel. State Tax Commissioners, 208 U. S. 192, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 275. [*619] As the constitutional validity of sections 6 and 7 of Chapter 8584, Acts of 1921, is not discussed in the majority opinion, it will not be discussed here. West, J., concurs.…
  • Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962)
    …rative structure — a denial which precludes the arbitrament by federal courts of what are only disputes over the local allocation of government functions and powers. See, e. g., Smith v. Indiana, 191 U. S. 138; Braxton County Court v. West Virginia, 208 U. S. 192; Marshall v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250; Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U. S. 14. 223 U. S., at 141. . . [T]he contention, if held to be sound, would necessarily affect the validity, not only of the particular statute which is before us, but of every other st…
  • Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGRATH, 341 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1951)
    …nner. A petitioner does not have standing to sue unless he is “interested in and affected adversely by the decision” of which he seeks review. His “interest must be of a personal and not of an official nature.” Braxton County Court v. West Virginia, 208 U. S. 192, 197; see also Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447. The interest must not be wholly negligible, as that of a taxpayer of the Federal Government is considered to be, Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447; cf. Crampton v. Zabriskie, 101 U. S. 601.…

Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (22 total)

View all 22 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw