Fitts v. Ghee, 130
Citation | 43 L.Ed. 535,19 S.Ct. 269,172 U.S. 516 |
Decision Date | 03 January 1899 |
Docket Number | No. 130,130 |
Parties | FITTS, Atty. Gen., et al. v. McGHEE et al |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
An act of the general assembly of Alabama, approved February 9, 1895, prescribed certain maximum rates of toll to be char ed on the bridge across the Tennessee river between the counties of Colbert and Lauderdale, in that state, and known as the 'Florence Bridge.' It also declared that should the owners, lessees, or operators of the bridge, by themselves or agents, demand or receive from any person a higher rate of toll than was prescribed, he or they should forfeit to such person $20 for each offense, to be recoverable before any justice of the peace or notary public and ex officio justice of the peace of either of the counties named.
When that act was passed the cases of Samuel Thomas against Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company and Central Trust Company of New York against Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company were pending in the court below; and on the 14th day of February, 1895, Charles M. McGhee and Henry Fink, receivers of the Memphis & Charleston Railroad in those causes, having first obtained leave to do so filed a bill in the name of themselves and the railroad company against 'the state of Alabama, William C. Oates, as governor of the state of Alabama, and William C. Fitts, as attorney general of the state of Alabama.'
After setting out their appointment as receivers; the order of the court below authorizing the institution of the present suit; the official character of the several defendants; the ownership by the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company of the bridge in question; the above act of February 9, 1895; the manner in which that company acquired the right to construct and own the Florence Bridge; the charters of the railroad company granted by Tennessee and Alabama; the purchase in 1850 of the bridge by the railroad company under the charter granted by Alabama, and its management of the bridge under the charter of the Florence Bridge Company,—the plaintiffs averred that the act incorporating the bridge company was a contract between the state and the owners of the bridge; that the rights acquired by that company under its charter passed to the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company; that the rates of toll fixed by the act were arbitrary, unreasonable, and amounted virtually to the confiscation of the plaintiffs' property; and that the act was in violation of the constitution of the United States, in that such a legislative enactment deprived the owners of the bridge of their property without due process of law, and denied to them the equal protection of the laws.
It was further alleged that the clause in the act imposing a penalty for demanding or receiving higher rates of toll than those prescribed was intended and had the effect to deter the plaintiffs from questioning by legal proceedings the validity of such legislation.
After stating that they were remediless except by a bill in equity, the plaintiffs prayed that 'process of subpoena be issued to and served upon the state of Alabama, the said Wm. C. Oates, as governor of the state of Alabama, and Wm. C. Fitts, as the attorney general of the state of Alabama,' requiring them, 'in behalf of the state,' to answer the bill, and that 'an injunction be granted prohibiting and restraining the said Wm. C. Oates, as governor of the state of Alabama, and the said Wm. C. Fitts, as the attorney general of the state of Alabama, and all persons whomsoever, from instituting any proceeding against the complainants or either of them under the forfeiture clause above set out in the second section of said act of the general assembly of Alabama.'
Subpoenas to appear, answer, or demur to the bill were issued and served upon defendant Oates, as governor, and upon defendant Fitts, as attorney general, of the state. A subpoena was also issued against the state, and served upon the defendant Oates, as governor.
A temporary injunction was issued, restraining and enjoining William C. Oates, as governor of Alabama, and William C. Fitts, as attorney general of the state, and 'all persons whomsoever, from instituting or prosecuting any proceedings' against the plaintiffs, or either of them, under the forfeit re clause contained in the above act of February 9, 1895.
The defendants appeared specially for the purpose of moving, and did move, that the bill be dismissed upon the ground that the suit was one against the state, and prohibited by the constitution of the United States.
The plaintiffs, by leave of the court, amended their bill by adding thereto paragraphs to the effect that frequent and numerous demands had been made by persons on foot, on horseback, and in vehicles of the tollgate keeper at the bridge to pass them over at the rate of toll fixed by the act, and upon the refusal of the tollgate keeper to permit them to pass by the payment of the rates so fixed, and his requiring them to pay the rates of toll fixed by the plaintiffs, they had paid the tolls so required of them under protest, and had threatened to institute suit or suits against the plaintiffs under the penalty clause of the act, and had also threatened to procure proceedings to be instituted in the courts by the governor and attorney general in the name of the state, by a mandamus or otherwise, to compel the plaintiffs to pass people over the bridge at the rates fixed by the act; that those persons had also threatened to procure proceedings to be instituted in the name of the state for a forfeiture of the franchise of the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company in and to the bridge property because of the failure and refusal to observe and obey the requirements of the act in reference to the rates of toll to be charged over the bridge; and that the persons so protesting and threatening suits were too numerous to be made parties to that suit. Special reference was made to William H. Gilliam, a resident citizen of Colbert county, Ala., as one of the parties or persons who had made threats of such suits and proceedings.
The bill was amended by making Gilliam a party defendant, and by adding, before the prayer for general relief, a prayer 'that an injunction be granted prohibiting and restraining the said William C. Oates, as the governor of the state of Alabama, and the said Wm. C. Fitts, as the attorney general of the state of Alabama, and the said Wm. H. Gilliam, and all persons whomsoever, from instituting or procuring the institution of any proceedings against these complainants, or either of them, by mandamus or otherwise, to compel the observance and obedience of said act in reference to the rate of tolls fixed thereby over the said bridge, and also from instituting or procuring to be instituted any proceeding against these complainants, or either of them, for the forfeiture of the franchise of the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company in and to the said bridge on account of the refusal to charge the rates of toll over it fixed by said act.'
Subsequently an order was made enjoining and restraining William C. Fitts, as attorney general of the state of Alabama, and William H. Gilliam, and all persons whomsoever, until the further order of the court, from instituting or procuring the institution of any proceeding against the plaintiffs, or either of them, by mandamus or otherwise, to compel the observance and obedience of the act in reference to the rate of tolls fixed thereby over the Florence Bridge, and from instituting, or procuring to be instituted, any proceedings against the plaintiffs, or either of them, for the forfeiture of the franchise of the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company in and to the bridge on account of the refusal to charge the rates of toll over it fixed by the act.
At a later date in the progress of the cause the plaintiffs, by leave of the court, inserted the following averments in the bill:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
NAACP v. State of Cal.
......Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 18 S.Ct. 418, 42 L.Ed. 819 (1898), and Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 19 S.Ct. 269, 43 L.Ed. 535 (1899), cited to support its ruling that state ......
-
Textron, Inc. v. Wood
...thereby controlled in the use and disposition of the means required for the proper administration of government. Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 19 S.Ct. 269, 43 L.Ed. 535. The defendant contends that these principles and policies constitute an insurmountable obstacle to the plaintiff's pray......
-
4115,4116,| United States ex rel. Miller v. Clausen
......v. Davis, 9 Wash. 600, 38. P. 154; Mason v. Purdy, 11 Wash. 591, 40 P. 130;. Smith v. Ormsby, 20 Wash. 396, 55 P. 570, 72. Am.St.Rep. 110; State ex rel. Porter v. Headlee, ...216; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U.S. 1, at. 9, 10, 11 & 12, 11 Sup.Ct. 699, 35 L.Ed. 363; Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516 at 524, 525, 528 & 529, 19 Sup.Ct. 269, 43 L.Ed. 535; Lankford v. Platte ......
-
Henry v. State
...attorney-general. We cite the court to the following authorities: Fray v. Machie, 68 Mich. 323; Babcock v. Hanselman, 56 Mich. 27; Pitts v. McGee, 172 U.S. 516; v. Navarre, 22 Mich. 1; Vrooman v. Michie, 69 Mich. 42; Benalleck v. People, 31 Mich. 200; Spencer v. Knight, 116 Col. 108; McCaul......
-
Citizen Suits Against States and Territories and the Eleventh Amendment
...311, 313 (1920) (same); Palmer v. Ohio, 248 U.S. 32, 34 (1918) (same); Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436, 446 (1900) (same); Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 524 (1899) (same); North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U.S. 22, 30 (1890) (same); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 13, 15 (1890) (assert-ing that f......
-
DEBS AND THE FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION.
...to warrant cutting short the normal adjudication of constitutional defenses in the course of a criminal prosecution."); Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 531-32 (1899) ("We are of opinion that the Circuit Court of the United States, sitting in equity, was without jurisdiction to enjoin the ins......
-
Pleading sovereign immunity: the doctrinal underpinnings of Hans v. Louisiana and Ex Parte Young.
...178 U.S. 436, 447-48 (1900) (discussing Justice Bradley's history in Hans as something independent of the Eleventh); Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 524 (1899) (stating that a state cannot be sued by its own citizens without connecting the principle to the (264.) See, e.g., Ex parte Young, 2......