Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Com Rs of Everglades Drainage Dist
Decision Date | 10 April 1922 |
Docket Number | No. 188,188 |
Citation | 66 L.Ed. 647,42 S.Ct. 325,258 U.S. 338 |
Parties | FORBES PIONEER BOAT LINE v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DIST |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. James M. Carson and W. P. Smith, both of Miami, Fla., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Wm. Glenn Terrell, of Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant in error.
This is a suit, begun in 1917, to recover tolls unlawfully collected from the plaintiff, the plaintiff in error, for passage through the lock of a canal. The Supreme Court of Florida sustained the declaration, 77 Fla. 742, 82 South. 346, but on the day of the decision the Legislature passed an act, chapter 7865, Acts of 1919, that purported to validate the collection. The act was pleaded. The plaintiff demurred setting up Article 1, Section 10, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, but the Supreme Court rendered judgment for the defendant on the ground that the plea was good. Bd. of Com'rs of Everglades Drainage Dist. v. Forbes Pioneer Boat Line, 80 Fla. 252, 86 South. 199.
Stripped of conciliatory phrases the question is whether a state legislature can take away from a private party a right to recover money that is due when the act is passed. The argument that prevailed below was based on the supposed analogy of United States v. Heinszen, 206 U. S. 370, 27 Sup. Ct. 742, 51 L. Ed. 1098, 11 Ann. Cas. 688 (Rafferty v. Smith, Bell & Co. [December 5, 1921] 257 U. S. 226, 42 Sup. Ct. 71, 66 L. Ed. 208), which held the Congress could ratify the collection of a tax that had been made without authority of law. That analogy, however, fails. A tax may be imposed in respect of past benefits, so that if instead of calling it a ratification Congress had purported to impose the tax for the first time the enactment would have been within its power. Wagner v. Baltimore, 239 U. S. 207, 216, 217, 36 Sup. Ct. 66, 60 L. Ed. 230. Stockdale v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 20 Wall. 323, 22 L. Ed. 348. But generally ratification of an act is not good if attempted at a time when the ratifying authority could not lawfully do the act. Bird v. Brown, 4 Exch, 786, 799. If we apply that principle this statute is invalid. For if the Legislature of Florida had attempted to make the plaintiff pay in 1919 for passages through the lock of a canal, that took place before 1917, without any promise of reward, there is nothing in the case as it stands to indicate that it could have done so any more effectively than it could have made a man pay a baker for a gratuitous deposit of rolls.
It is true that the doctrine of ratification has been carried somewhat beyond the point that we indicate, in regard to acts done in the name of the Government by those who assume to represent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Comptroller of the Treasury v. Glenn L. Martin Co.
...was correct. [Cases cited.]' But the doctrine is not without limitations, as was held in Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Commissioners, 258 U.S. 338, 42 S.Ct. 325, 66 L.Ed. 647. There the plaintiff boat line sued to recover tolls charged by the defendant board for the use of a canal lo......
-
In re International Match Corp.
...238, 6 S.Ct. 1038, 30 L.Ed. 173; Steamship Company v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450, 457-458, 17 L.Ed. 805; Forbes Boat Line v. Board of Commissioners, 258 U.S. 338, 339, 42 S.Ct. 325, 66 L. Ed. 647; Fisk v. Police Jury of Jefferson, 116 U.S. 131, 6 S.Ct. 329, 29 L.Ed. 587; Campbell v. City of Bosto......
-
Addison v. Huron Stevedoring Corp.
...262. 3 See also, e. g., Coombes v. Getz, 258 U.S. 434, 442-445, 52 S.Ct. 435, 76 L.Ed. 866; Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Commissioners, 258 U.S. 338, 340, 42 S.Ct. 325, 66 L.Ed. 647. 4 Cf. Unexcelled Chemical Corporation v. United States, 345 U.S. 59, 73 S.Ct. 580. 5 Judge HAND'S co......
-
Untermyer v. Anderson
...Recently this Court recognized broadly that 'a tax may be imposed in respect of past benefits.' Forbes Boat Line v. Board of Commissioners, 258 U. S. 338, 339, 42 S. Ct. 325, 66 L. Ed. 647. The act with which we are here concerned had, however, a special justification for retroactive featur......
-
How Many Times Was Lochner-era Substantive Due Process Effective? - Michael J. Phillips
...an earlier ordinance under which city had agreed to pay full cost of such improvements); Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Comm'rs, 258 U.S. 338, 338-40 (1922) (statute validating illegal collection of canal toll after claimant had recovered for that toll apparently violates both due pro......