Carolina Glass Company v. State of South Carolina No 12 Carolina Glass Company v. William Murray No Carolina Glass Company v. William Murray No 205 Carolina Glass Company v. William Murray No 204 204
| Decision Date | 21 February 1916 |
| Docket Number | 9,Nos. 12,205,s. 12 |
| Parties | CAROLINA GLASS COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. NO 12. CAROLINA GLASS COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. WILLIAM J. MURRAY, Chairman, John McSween, et al., Constituting the State Dispensary Commission, et al. NO 9. CAROLINA GLASS COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. WILLIAM J. MURRAY, John McSween, Adolphus N. Wood, Avery Patton, and James S. Brice. NO 205. CAROLINA GLASS COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. WILLIAM J. MURRAY, John McSween, Adolphus N. Wood, Avery Patton, and James S. Brice. NO 204. , and 204 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 305-307 intentionally omitted] Messrs. William H. Lyles, David W. Robinson, and Jo-Berry S. Lyles for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Benjamin Lindsey Abney and Thomas H. Peeples for defendants in error.
These suits grew out of the legislation by which South Carolina sought to control traffic in liquors. They involve closely related matters, were heard together, and it will be convenient likewise to dispose of them. In Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58, 41 L. ed. 632, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 265, Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co. 170 U. S. 438, 42 L. ed. 1100, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 674, and Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co. 213 U. S. 151, 53 L. ed. 742, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 458, the history and general purposes of the legislation are considered.
By act of 1892 the general assembly created a state board of control, with power to supervise the traffic; also provided for a state commissioner charged with the duty of purchasing and distributing liquors through local officers known as dispensers.
The statute of 1896 directed election, by the general assembly, of the board of control, and gave it power to make purchases and to appoint a commissioner who should supply local dispensers selected by and under direction of county boards. By an amending act of 1900 the board then existing was abolished; a board of directors of the state dispensary was created, with power to prescribe rules and regulations to govern dispensaries both state and county; and provision was made for the election of a dispensary commissioner. The new board was required to purchase liquor for lawful use within the state; and general management and control of the state dispensary was intrusted to the commissioner.
A legislative committee was appointed in 1905 to investigate the state dispensary. In 1907 the statute of 1896 was repealed; control through a state board was abolished and county boards substituted, clothed with authority to purchase 'in the name of this state' all liquors to be sold within their several counties, 'Provided, That the state shall not be liable upon any contract for the purchase thereof beyond actual assets of the dispensary for which the purchase is made.' At the same time another act created a State Dispensary Commission of five, gave it control of all funds, assets, and property other than real estate of the state dispensary, required it to investigate all facts concerning outstanding claims against the state dispensary, and thereafter to pay all just liabilities from dispensary assets which might come into its hands. This second act of 1907 was amended in 1908, and the commission given 'full power to pass upon, fix and determine all claims against the state growing out of dealings with the dispensary; and to pay for the state any and all just claims, which have been submitted to and determined by it, and no other, out of the assets of the dispensary which have been or may hereafter be collected by said Dispensary Commission: Provided, That each and every person, firm or corporation, presenting a claim or claims to said Commission, shall have the right to appeal to the supreme court, as in cases at law.'
By act of February 23d, 1910, findings of the State Dispensary Commission were declared to be final; any sum ascertained to be due the state was required to be deducted from whatever a county dispensary might own such debtor; and authority was given the Commission to command any county dispensary so indebted to turn over to it an equivalent amount of money. Notices of claims in favor of the state, creation of liens to secure the same, and enforcement of their payment, were also provided for.
Number 12.
The history and disposition of this cause in the state tribunals sufficiently appear from parts of the opinion by the supreme court (87 S. C. 270, 69 S. E. 391) quoted below:
'The investigations of the committee [appointed 1905] resulted in an act, passed in 1907, authorizing the appointment of a commission, to be known as the State Dispensary Commission, whose duty it was to close out the entire business and property of the state dispensary, collect all debts due, and pay 'all just liabilities' of the state growing out of said business. The Commission was given 'full power and authority to investigate the past conduct of the affairs of the dispensary.' It was also clothed with all the power and authority conferred upon the committee which had been appointed under the resolution above referred to. 25 Stat. 835. The act of 1907 was amended in 1908 so as to give the Commission 'full power to pass upon, fix and determine all claims against the state growing out of dealings with the dispensary; and to pay for the state any and all just claims which have been submitted to and determined by it, and no other.' 25 Stat. 1289.
'Appellant presented to the Commission a claim for $23,013.75 as the balance due it by the state for bottles and demijohns furnished to the dispensary under contracts made with the board of directors from and including April, 1906, until the business was closed out by the Commission. Appellant had also furnished the dispensary practically all the bottles and demijohns used since about December, 1902; but all accounts prior to April, 1906, had been settled.
'Upon the filing of this claim, the Commission went into an investigation of all past dealings of appellant with the dispensary; and, after hearing a great deal of testimony and argument thereon, rendered its decision, dated Nov. 17, 1909, which will be set out in the report of the case.
'The conclusion and finding of the Commission was that, in pursuance of a conspiracy between some of the directors of the dispensary and some of the appellant's officers or agents to defraud the state, whereby legitimate competition was destroyed, appellant had a monopoly of the business of furnishing glass to the dispensary from the date of its beginning business, in 1902, until April, 1906; and that the prices paid it for glass during that period exceeded the fair market value thereof by $51,432.99. Therefore, allowing appellant's claim of $23,013.75, the Commission found that appellant was indebted to the state in the sum of $28,419.24, the difference between the amount of its claim and the sum it had fraudulently collected from the state.
'From that decision, this appeal was taken, under the provisions of the statute, giving every claimant the right of appeal to the supreme court, 'as in cases at law.' Appellant concedes that the jurisdiction of this court is limited in such cases to a review of alleged errors of law.
* * * * *
'The next contention of appellant is that the Commission is not a court, but a special tribunal of limited power, and that it exceeded its authority in undertaking to fix and determine appellant's liability to the state, and then set off its claim against the liability so fixed. It is conceded that the Commission is not a court, though its duties necessarily involve, to some extent, the exercise of judicial functions, as is always the case where judgment and discretion are to be exercised. It was created under § 2 of article 17 of the Constitution, which provides that 'the general assembly may direct by law in what manner claims against the state may be established and adjusted.'
* * * * *
'The question, therefore, whether the commission had authority to entertain a 'set-off' or 'counterclaim' in favor of the state against a claimant, in the technical sense in which those terms are used in legal proceedings, is not germane or material to the present inquiry. To what purpose should the Commission investigate, unless it announced the result of its investigation? We see no error, therefore, in the Commission stating its findings as the result of its investigation.
* * * * *
'The judgment of this court is that the decision of the Commission upon plaintiff's claim against the state be affirmed.'
Manifestly, we think, the supreme court affirmed the Commission's action only in so far as it declined to approve the glass company's claim,—there was no final determination of the state's right to recover over against the company.
Error is assigned concerning supposed Federal questions upon the theory that there has been 'in practical effect an adjudication of the validity of the alleged claim of the state arising out of the ended transactions prior to April, 1906, and a satisfaction of such a judgment by the confiscation of plaintiff in error's property; that is, its claim against the state for goods furnished since 1906.'
This theory is entirely out of harmony with the supreme court's opinion, which holds the validity of possible demands against the glass company remains wholly undetermined, and that, acting within its plain powers, the state had only refused to recognize and discharge a claim against itself. The argument of counsel proceeds upon a fundamental misconception. We find no error in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida Lime and Avocado Growers, Inc v. Jacobsen, 49
...Planters' Bank of Memphis v. City of Memphis, 189 U.S. 71, 73, 23 S.Ct. 604, 605, 47 L.Ed. 712; Carolina Glass Co. v. State of South Carolina, 240 U.S. 305, 318, 36 S.Ct. 293, 298, 60 L.Ed. 658, but if jurisdiction was based both on a constitutional ground and some other federal ground the ......
-
Palmetto Fire Ins. Co. v. Beha
...federal judicial power does not extend to suits against a state brought by a citizen of another state. Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina, 240 U. S. 305, 36 S. Ct. 293, 60 L. Ed. 658. This immunity from suit is a personal privilege, and may be waived in a case otherwise within the jurisdi......
-
Cargile v. New York Trust Co.
...a citizen of another state, even in cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina, 240 U. S. 305, 36 S. Ct. 293, 60 L. Ed. 658; Murray v. South Carolina, 213 U. S. 174, 29 S. Ct. 465, 53 L. Ed. 752; Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 2......
-
Hubbell v. Leonard
...merely a nominal party, then the suit is in substance one against the state, and cannot be maintained. Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina, 240 U. S. 305, 36 S. Ct. 293, 60 L. Ed. 658; Farish v. State Banking Board, 235 U. S. 498, 35 S. Ct. 185, 59 L. Ed. 330; Lankford v. Platte Iron Works......