SHAFFER
v.
HOWARD, AUDITOR OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ET AL.

U.S. | 1919-03-10
No. 375
249 U.S. 200 Supreme Court of the United States (1919) Caution
Also reported at: 63 L. Ed. 559 · 39 S. Ct. 255 · SCDB 1918-159 · 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2191
Cited by 14 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

Shaffer sued Oklahoma state officials to enjoin enforcement of a state tax, claiming it violated the U.S. Constitution, but the lower court dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss because the defendants' terms of office had expired and been succeeded by others, making the case moot and depriving the Court of jurisdiction to decide the matter. The Court held that it lacks authority to decide cases where the parties have disappeared and there is no law authorizing the suit to continue against their successors.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice White.

Memorandum opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice White.

This suit was commenced against E. B. Howard, auditor of the State of Oklahoma,' and John S. Woofter, shériff of Creek County in that State, to enjoin such officials from enforcing a tax levied under the law of Oklahoma on the ground of the repugnancy of such tax to the Constitution of the United States.- The court refused an injunction and dismissed the bill for want of equity, and the case was brought here. Counsel for both parties having stated in answer to an inquiry on the subject submitted to them by the court while the cause was pending after argument under submission that the term of office of the defendant officials had expired and their successors had qualified, and that there was no law of the State of Oklahoma authorizing a revival or continuance of the cause of action against such successors, it follows that the controversy has become merely moot and that we have no authority to further consider or dispose of it. Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U. S. 28, 34; Chandler v. Dix, 194 U. S. 590, 592; Pullman Co. v. Croom, 231 U. S. 571, 575.

True it is that counsel, in agreeing as to the statement above referred to, suggest that, although the successors in office of the former defendants intend in the discharge of their official duties to enforce the tax complained of unless enjoined from doing so, nevertheless, in view of the importance to the people of the State that the subject-matter of the controversy be here determined, a decision should be made of the pending cause irrespective of the disappearance of the parties defendant. But the absence of power which results from such disappearance cannot be supplied by the request referred to since after all it amounts to but a suggestion that that be done which there is no authority to do; in other words that the cause be decided in the absence of the parties whose presence is essential to its decision. United States v. Boutwell, 17 Wall. 604, 609; United States ex rel. Bernardin v. Butterworth, 169 U. S. 600, 609; Pullman Co. v. Croom, 231 U. S. 571, 576.

It follows therefore that the decree below must be reversed, and the cause be remanded with directions to dismiss the bill for want of proper parties,

And it is so ordered.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1920)
    …efendants expired, and, there being no law of the [*44] State authorizing a revival or continuance of the action against their successors, we reversed the decree and remanded the cause with directions to dismiss .the bill for want of proper parties. 249 U. S. 200. After such dismissal, the present defendant Carter, as State Auditor, issued another tax warrant and delivered if to defendant Bruce, Sheriff of Creek County, with instructions to levy upon and sell plaintiff’s property in that county ill order to…
  • Ex parte la Prade, 289 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1933)
    …empowered by § 780, the district court is without jurisdiction to direct that petitioner be substituted and that the suits be continued and maintained against him. United States ex rel. Bernardin v. Butterworth, 169 U.S. 600, 605. Shaffer v. Howard, 249 U.S. 200, 201. Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Wendell, 261 U.S. 1. Subdivision (a) of § 780 applies only to proceedings brought by or against officers of the United States or those holding office directly or mediately under the authority of Congress. It is derived from…
  • Acheson v. Fujiko Furusho, 212 F.2d 284 (9th Cir. 1954)
    …aving elapsed after his resignation and no substitution having been made. In Richardson v. McChesney, 1910, 218 U.S. 487, 31 S.Ct. 43, 54 L.Ed. 1121; Pullman Co. v. Croom, 1913, 231 U.S. 571, 34 S.Ct. 182, 58 L.Ed. 375, and Shaffer v. Howard, 1919, 249 U.S. 200, 39 S.Ct. 255, 63 L.Ed. 559, abatement was or [*291] dered as in the Boutwell case and for the same reason, since the Act of 1899, modifying abatement, did not affect cases in state courts. In Murphy v. Utter, 1902, 186 U.S. 95, 22 S.Ct. 776, 46 L.…

Previewing 3 of 5 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