HURLEY
v.
COMMISSION OF FISHERIES OF VIRGINIA ET AL.
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.
Hurley challenged Virginia's Commission of Fisheries removal of boundary markers on oyster grounds he claimed to occupy, arguing the state statute authorizing the removal violated due process by failing to provide notice and hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision denying his injunction, holding that Hurley could not simultaneously attack the validity of the statute while relying upon it to establish his property rights, and that the evidence showed no deprivation of property he could rightfully claim.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellant sought a temporary injunction restraining the Virginia Commission of Fisheries from removing the stakes and marks which designated the boundaries of certain oyster grounds in the Rappahannock River, planted by him and which he claimed the right to occupy, and thereby opening the same for public use and enjoyment.
He maintained that the Commission was proceeding under a state statute invalid because it. failed to provide for proper notice and hearing and that the proposed action would deprive him of property without due process of law contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment.
A majority of the three judges composing the court below concluded—264 Fed. 116—that the Commission had acted in substantial compliance with the challenged statute, that whatever rights of property appellant claimed in respect of the specified lands, or the oysters thereon, were necessarily based upon the statute itself and that he could not both assail it and rely upon it in the same proceeding. Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham R. R. Co. v. Stiles, 242 U. S. 111, 117. And further that the evidence showed conclusively that the threatened action would not deprive him of any property which he could rightfully claim. It accordingly refused to grant a temporary injunction but did not dismiss complainant’s bill. We find no reason to interfere with this decree and it is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Clarke concurs in the result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Doyle E. Carlton v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 113 Fla. 63 (Fla. 1933)…d to complain of, or repudiate a statute voluntarily invoked and upon which he sues, as he cannot both assail and rely upon it in the same proceedings. Peo. v. Rodgers Co., 277 Ill. 151, 115 N. E. 146; Hurley v. Commission of Fisheries [*68] of Va., 257 U. S. 223, 66 L. Ed. 206; 4 C. J. App. & Err. Sec. 2608. For the error pointed out in overruling the demurrer to defendant’s fifth plea, this case must he reversed and a new trial granted. It is so ordered. Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concu…
-
Jannett v. Windham, 109 Fla. 129 (Fla. 1933)…s who make small short loans, from the usury laws' upon obtaining a stated license; and having the benefit of the statute, they cannot challenge the validity of the provision requiring the license to be obtained. Hurley v. Commissioner of Fisheries, 257 U. S. 223, text 225, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 83, 66 L. Ed. 206. If the plaintiffs in error have a right to challenge the validity of the license provision of the statute under which they operate to protect them from the usury laws, the statutory provision requiring…1 / 2
-
Frost v. Corp. Comm'n of Okla., 278 U.S. 515 (U.S. 1929)…o question that one who has acquired rights of property necessarily based upon a statute may not attack that statute as unconstitutional, for he cannot both assail it and rely upon it in the same proceeding. Hurley [*528] v. Commission of Fisheries, 257 U. S. 223, 225. But here the proviso under attack, having been adopted by a subsequent act and being invalid, had no effect, as we have already said, upon the provisions of the statute. As applied to this case, it began and ended as a futile attempt by the le…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- COE v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 237 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1915)
- Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Wright, 207 U.S. 127 (U.S. 1907)
- Kan. City v. Stiles, 242 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1916)