FAY
v.
CROZER

U.S. | 1910-05-02
No. 165
217 U.S. 455 Supreme Court of the United States (1910) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 54 L. Ed. 837 · 30 S. Ct. 568 · 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1971 · SCDB 1909-144
Cited by 21 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 Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error challenging West Virginia's constitutional provision that forfeited property title for five years' nonpayment of taxes, holding that the forfeiture was constitutional and that the question was not substantial enough to warrant review under the established rule requiring substantial controversy in cases brought directly to the Court. The Court determined that prior cases, particularly King v. Mullins and King v. West Virginia, had already resolved that such tax-based forfeiture of land was constitutionally permissible and comparable to other statutory forfeitures based on neglect to assert title.

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

Per_curiam
Per Curiam:

Per Curiam:

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the'Southern District of West .Virginia, brought directly to this court, and as such falls within the rule that the. controversy must be substantial and the question open to discussion.. Tested by that rule, we think the writ of error must be dismissed on the authority of King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404; King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S.

92. And see King v. Panther Lumber Company, 171 U. S. 437; Swann v. State, 188 U. S. 739, It is contended' that the question of the forfeiture of plaintiffs’ title under the constitution of West Virginia was hot ruled in those, cases, because-théy also involved the statute .of the State, referred to, while this case ' presents the validity of the forfeiture provision of the state constitution alone. But’ it was-pointed out in King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 100, that the right to redeem given by the statute was. not coextensive with the forfeiture under the state constitution, and yet the constitution was upheld,' as it was in ' King v. Mullins, 171 U. S.

404. I.t follows, therefore, that the státe constitution must be upheld in the present case. The . only hearing that could be necessary would be whether the facts-constitute a forfeiture,- and that question when it arises • between a.former owner and a claimant under the State can be tried in a case between..those parties, as it was here. There is no greater objection under the Constitution off the' United-• States to. the forfeiture of land-for five years’ neglect' to pay . taxes than "there is to a similar'-forfeiture by-the statute of limitations for.neglect to assert title against one. by whom-the ' former owner has been .disseised. We think, that the question, suggested is so plainly covered-by. the preceding cases that the writ of error must be dismissed.

It is so ordered,

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

  • Int'l Shoe Co. v. State OF Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945)
    …inations by this Court of an issue so palpably without merit are sufficient. Consequently that part of this appeal which again seeks to raise the question seems so patently frivolous as to make the case a fit candidate for dismissal. Fay v. Crozer, 217 U. S. 455. Nor is the further ground advanced on this appeal, that the State of Washington has denied appellant due process of law, any less devoid of substance. It is my view, therefore, that we should dismiss the appeal as unsubstantial,1 Seaboard Air Line…
  • Ky. Union Co. v. Commonwealth of Ky., 219 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1911)
    …ealth’s attorney, in which there is opportunity for a hearing, and after which the forfeiture may be declared. The case of King v. Mullins, supra, was followed and approved in this court in King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92, and in Fay v. Croser, 217 U. S. 455. [*156] It is however insisted that although a hearing before forfeiture is provided the proceedings are so arbitrary and oppressive as to deprive the owner of due process of law, notwithstanding there is opportunity to appear and congest the forfei…
    1 / 2
  • Griffith v. State of Conn., 218 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1910)

Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw