MCCOY
v.
SHAW, STATE AUDITOR, ET AL.

U.S. | 1928-05-21
No. 403
277 U.S. 302 Supreme Court of the United States (1928) Caution
Also reported at: 72 L. Ed. 891 · 48 S. Ct. 519 · 1928 U.S. LEXIS 883 · SCDB 1927-159
Cited by 46 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

A Chickasaw Indian sought to enjoin Oklahoma from collecting a gross production tax on his oil royalty interest, claiming the tax violated federal treaties and statutes protecting Indian lands. The Oklahoma Supreme Court dismissed the suit on non-federal grounds, holding that the petitioner had an adequate remedy at law under state statute by paying the tax under protest and suing for recovery. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, applying the settled principle that when a state court's judgment rests on an independent and adequate non-federal ground, federal review is barred unless that ground is plainly arbitrary or a mere device to evade the federal question.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Sanford

Mr. Justice Sanford delivered the opinion of the Court.

McCoy, the petitioner, a Chickasaw Indian of one-fourth blood, brought this suit in equity in a state court of Oklahoma to enjoin the collection of a gross production tax oh his one-eighth royalty interest in’ the oil produced under a lease of lands patented to him as his homestead and surplus allotments from which all restrictions on alienation and incumbrance had been removed — claiming that this tax on his royalty share in the oil was in violation of the treaties between the United States and the Chickasaw. Indians and the Acts of Congress relating thereto. The court dismissed the suit on motion, for want of equity; and this was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, without consideration of the federal question, on the ground that under §§ 9971 and 9973 of the Compiled Oklahoma Statutes, 1921, the petitioner had a plain, adequate and exclusive remedy at law by paying the tax under protest and suing for its recovery. 124 Okla. 256.

It is settled law that a judgment of a state court which is.put upon a non-federal ground, independent of the federal question involved and broad enough to sustain the judgment, cannot be reviewed by this Court, unless the non-federal ground is so plainly unfounded that it may be regarded as essentially arbitrary or a mere device to prevent the review of a decision upon the federal question. Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93, 99; Vandalia Railroad v. South Bend, 207 U. S. 359, 367; Enterprise Irrig. Dist. v. Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 164;. Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S. 17, 22; and cases therein cited.

Here thenon-federalground upon which the Oklahoma court based its decision — namely, that under the Oklahoma statutes the petitioner had a plain, adequate and exclusive remedy at law — was based on its earlier decision in Black v. Geissler, 58 Okla. 335. It is in harmony with the -decisions of this Court relating to similar statutes of other States. Tennessee v. Sneed, 96 U. S. 69, 75; Shelton v. Platt, 139 U. S. 591, 595; Indiana Mfg. Co. v. Koehne, 188 U. S. 681, 686; Raymond v. Chicago Traction Co., 207 U. S. 20, 39; Singer Sewing Mach. Co. v. Benedict, 229 U. S. 481, 487; Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Weld County, 247 U. S. 282, 285. And no intent to evade the federal question is indicated.

We are without authority to determine the federal right claimed by the petitioner. And the writ of certiorari is

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (22 total)

  • South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1983)
    …7, 128 (1945). Accord, Jankovich v. Indiana Toll Road Comm’n, 379 U. S. 487 (1965); Honeyman v. Hanan, 300 U. S. 14, 18-19 (1937); Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U. S. 207 (1935); Lynch v. New York ex rel. Pierson, 293 U. S. 52 (1934); McCoy v. Shaw, 277 U. S. 302 (1928); Petrie v. Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District, 248 U. S. 154, 157 (1918); Enterprise Irrigation District v. Farmers Mutual Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 163-166 (1917); Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361 (1893); Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590…
  • Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1935)
    …a long line of cases since that time. It is enough to cite, in addition to the Klinger case, the following: Enterprise Irrigation District v. Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 163—165; Petrie v. Nampa Irrigation District, 248 U. S. 154, 157; McCoy v. Shaw, 277 U. S. 302; Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361. Whether the provisions of a contract are non-severable, so that if one be held invalid the others must fall with it, is clearly a question of general and not of federal law. The invalidity of the arbitration clause…
  • Utley v. ST. Petersburg, 292 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1934)
    …al Canal Co., 243 U.S. 157, 164. Our jurisdiction therefore fails. Enterprise Irrigation District v. Farmers Mutual Canal Co., supra; Pierce v. Somerset Ry. Co., [*112] 171 U.S. 641; Leonard v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co., 198 U.S. 416; McCoy v. Shaw, 277 U.S. 302. The federal questions are unsubstantial; the non-federal question is genuine and adequate. Lawrence v. State Tax Comm’n, 286 U.S. 276, 282; Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U.S. 766, 773. The appeal is Dismissed.…

Previewing 3 of 22 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