NORTHPORT POWER & LIGHT CO.
v.
HARTLEY, GOVERNOR OF WASHINGTON, 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.
Northport Power & Light Co., a Washington corporation with majority alien ownership, sought to enjoin state officials from enforcing a Washington constitutional provision and statute prohibiting alien ownership of land, arguing they violated the U.S. Constitution's commerce and contract clauses, the Fourteenth Amendment, and a U.S.-Great Britain treaty. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the company failed to establish grounds for equitable relief because the only alleged injury was the potential unfavorable outcome of a state court suit, and absent extraordinary circumstances, federal courts cannot enjoin enforcement of state laws merely because they are allegedly unconstitutional when the party can adequately protect its rights through state court proceedings.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a bill in equity to enjoin the appellees from bringing or causing to be brought a suit for enforcing against the appellant Section 33, Article II of the Constitution of the State of Washington and an Act of 1921 in pursuance of the same, it being alleged that the Section and Act are repugnant to the commerce and contract clauses of the Constitution of the United States and also to the Fourteenth Amendment and to the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain. The bill was dismissed by a District Court of three Judges. 35 F. (2d) 199.
The bill alleges that the plaintiff, the appellant, is a corporation of the State of Washington and that it owns rights of way, &e., over which it transmits electrical energy from Canada to points within the State. But the majority of its stock is owned by an alien corporation and, with immaterial exceptions, Section 33, Art. II of the Constitution of the State prohibits the ownership of land by aliens and provides that every corporation of which the majority of the stock is owned by aliens shall be considered an alien for the purposes of the prohibition. This was in force before the appellant acquired its alleged rights. The statute was passed after the acquisition. State v. Natsuhara, 136 Wash. 437, 444; 240 Pac. 557. It is alleged that the defendants have threatened and will attempt to forfeit and escheat to the State the plaintiff’s rights by prosecuting a suit at law in the Courts of the State as a result of which the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss.
Some, at least, of the constitutional objections to the laws of the State are disposed of by Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, but before they are reached there arises the objection that no ground for equitable interference by the Courts of the United States is shown by the bill. The only injury alleged is the result of the suit in the State Courts. So far as appears that result will ensue only upon a decision against the appellant. It is an odd ground for an injunction against a suit that the suit may turn out against the party sued. If the action is based upon an unconstitutional law and if the trial Court upholds it, still the appellant can protect its rights as fully in the State Courts as elsewhere. As it is put by Mr. Justice Moody speaking for a unanimous Court, “It is safe to say that no case can be found where this court has deliberately approved the issuance of an injunction against the enforcement of an ordinance resting on state authority, merely because it was illegal or unconstitutional, unless further circumstances were shown which brought the case within some clear ground of equity jurisdiction.” Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boise City, 213 U. S. 276, 285. Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U. S. 453, 456. These cases relied on by the Court below are sufficient to sustain its conclusion. The exceptions are explained in the cases in which they occur, e. g., Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 215, 216.
Decree affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yarnell v. Hillsborough Packing Co., 70 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. 1934)…tutional; but one seeking injunctive relief on that ground must further show that he is entitled to it on some clear ground of equity jurisdiction. Boise Water Co. v. Boise City, 213 U. S. 276, 29 S. Ct. 426, 53 L. Ed. 796; Northport Co. v. Hartley, 283 U. S. 568, 51 S. Ct. 581, 75 L. Ed. 1275. Inasmuch as the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the Secretary of Agricultui~e, it was powerless to enjoin the suspension or revocation of any license issued by him, or the enforcement of any fine or penalty r…1 / 2
-
Butler v. D. A. Schulte, Inc., 67 F.2d 632 (5th Cir. 1933)…e exerted, especially in restraint of state officers, Matthews v. Rodgers, 284 U. S. 521, 52 S. Ct. 217, 76 L. Ed. 447, Schoenthal v. Irving Trust Co., 287 U. S. 94, 53 S. Ct. 50, 77 L. Ed. 185, Northport Power & Light Co. v. Hartley, 283 U. S. 569, 51 S. Ct. 581, 75 L. Ed. 1275, and binding its corollary, that where administrative remedies are afforded the taxpayer, he must exhaust these before coming into equity, Gorham Mfg. Co. v. State Tax Comm., 266 U. S. 265, 45 S. Ct. 80, 69 L. Ed. 279, First Nat. Ban…
-
Pape v. ST. Lucie Inlet Dist. & Port Auth., 75 F.2d 865 (5th Cir. 1935)…L. S. W. R. Co, 284 U. S. 530, 531, 52 S. Ct. 222, 76 L. Ed. 465; Yarnell v. Hillsborough Pkg. Co. (C. C. A.) 70 F.(2d) 435; Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boise City, 213 U. S. 276, 29 S. Ct. 426, 53 L. Ed. 796; Northport Co. v. Hartley, 283 U. S. 568, 51 S. Ct. 581, 75 L. Ed. 1275; c/f Amazon Petroleum Corp. v. R. R. Comm. (D. C.) 5 F. Supp. 639. The slightest reflection on what the bill claims convinces that there is no equity in it. Without any allegation as to what part of the taxes had bee…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1923)
- Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boise City, 213 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1909)
- Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U.S. 453 (U.S. 1919)
- Northport Power & Light Co. v. Hartley (W.D. Wash. 1929)