Covington Cincinnati Bridge Co v. Hager
| Decision Date | 05 November 1906 |
| Docket Number | No. 37,37 |
| Citation | 27 S.Ct. 24,51 L.Ed. 111,203 U.S. 109 |
| Parties | COVINGTON & CINCINNATI BRIDGE CO., Plff. in Err., v. S. W. HAGER, Auditor of Public Accounts of the Commonwealth of Kentucky |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs.
Shelley D. Rouse and Charlton B. Thompson for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. N. B. Hays, John W. Ray, and C. H. Morris for defendant in error.
In this case an original action in mandamus was begun in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Kentucky. It was brought by the bridge company to compel the auditor of public accounts for the state to issue his warrant on the state treasury for the amount of a franchise tax collected under authority of §§ 4079 and 4080 of the Kentucky statutes. The return of the tax was asked upon the ground that it levied a burden on the interstate commerce business of the bridge company, pertaining exclusively to commerce between Kentucky and Ohio, and was therefore repugnant to the Federal Constitution.
The auditor appeared by counsel, and, by general demurrer, raised the question of the sufficiency of the allegations of the petition, and by special demurrer challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the action. The circuit court, passing the question of jurisdiction, held that levying the tax in question did not violate the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, as it was a tax upon property, and not upon the business of the company, sustained the general demurrer, and dismissed the petition.
We are of opinion that the court below had no jurisdiction of this action. It has been too frequently decided in this court to require the citation of the cases that the circuit courts of the United States have no jurisdiction in original cases of mandamus, and have only power to issue such writs in aid of their jurisdiction in cases already pending, wherein jurisdicton has been acquired by other means and by other process.
Many of the cases are collected in 4 Fed. Stat. Annotated, 503.
The question was before this court recently in Knapp v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 197 U. S. 536, 49 L. ed. 870, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 538, an action by the Interstate Commerce Commission, by petition for mandamus in the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Ohio, against the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railroad Company, to compel it to file reports required by the act to regulate interstate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. F.C.C.
...Stern v. South Chester Tube Co., 390 U.S. 606, 608, 88 S.Ct. 1332, 1333, 20 L.Ed.2d 177 (1968); Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Hager, 203 U.S. 109, 110, 27 S.Ct. 24, 51 L.Ed. 111 (1906). Because the District Court has no present or future jurisdiction over agency actions assigned by s......
-
City of Highland Park, Ill. v. Train
...U.S.C. § 1361, was adopted in 1962, the federal district courts did not have mandamus jurisdiction, Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Hager, 203 U.S. 109, 27 S.Ct. 24, 51 L.Ed. 111 (1906), except in the District of Columbia, Fagan v. Schroeder, 284 F.2d 666, 668 (7th Cir. 1960), where it......
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Query
...settled that the federal courts have no power to issue a writ of mandamus as an original proceeding. Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Hager, 203 U. S. 109, 27 S. Ct. 24, 51 L. Ed. 111. In order to prevent a court of equity in the federal courts from assuming jurisdiction in a proper cas......
-
Pugach v. Klein
...had conferred jurisdiction on the lower federal courts to entertain original suits in mandamus. Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Hager, 1906, 203 U.S. 109, 27 S.Ct. 24, 51 L.Ed. 111. Any lingering doubt as to lack of such power vanished with the adoption of Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rul......