Smith v. Rackliffe
Decision Date | 03 May 1898 |
Docket Number | 422. |
Citation | 87 F. 964 |
Parties | SMITH v. RACKLIFFE. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
C. N Sterry and E. S. Pillsbury, for plaintiff in error.
W. F Fitzgerald and W. H. Anderson, for defendant in error.
Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judge.
The plaintiff in error, as receiver for the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company, was the plaintiff in an action which was brought against the state treasurer of the state of California, under section 3669 of the Political Code of California, to recover $2,272.80 taxes paid by said company for the year 1893, alleging, in his complaint, that said railroad company was operating, under a lease from the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, a certain line of railroad in the state of California, over which leased line the lessor company also ran its trains; that said line of road, and the rolling stock thereon, owned and operated by the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, were returned by that company to the state board of equalization for assessment for the year 1893, and were assessed to said Southern Pacific Company at a certain apportioned valuation per mile for all of the road which is covered by the lease; that the rolling stock on said leased road, owned and operated by the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company, was returned under protest by that company to the state board of equalization, and was by said board assessed for the year 1893 to its said owner; that each of said companies paid the taxes levied upon its property; that the said rolling stock of the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company so assessed was not used alone upon the line of the leased road in California, but was used in said company's traffic in other states, and was constantly coming and going into and out of said state, and that the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company's headquarters and the situs of its rolling stock is in the county of Bernallio, N.M., in which county all of its rolling stock was returned for taxation in 1893; that said assessment on the rolling stock of both companies using said road resulted in double taxation. The action was begun in the name of J. W. Reinhart, the former receiver of said road, and against J. R. McDonald, then the state treasurer. To the said complaint a demurrer was interposed, upon the grounds-- First, that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action; and second, that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The circuit court, McKenna, J., sustained the demurrer upon the second ground, but disposed of the question of the jurisdiction in the following language:
'Reinhart v. McDonald, 76 F. 403.
Upon writ of error from this court, the plaintiff in error contends that the circuit court erroneously sustained the demurrer, and the defendant in error again raises the objection which was presented in the lower court, that the court is without jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action upon the ground that it is an action against the state of California, and subject to the inhibition of the eleventh amendment to the constitution of the United States, which provides that 'the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. ' There can be no doubt that the action, although nominally against the state treasurer, is in fact an action against the state of California. From the time of the adoption of the eleventh amendment the supreme court of the United States has held that it should be construed fairly and liberally, and in consonance with its manifest purpose, and has established the doctrine that when, 'the nominal defendants have no personal interest in the subject-matter of the suit, but defend only as representing the state, the state is the real party against whom the relief is sought, and this suit is substantially within the prohibition of the eleventh amendment. ' Hagood v. Southern, 117 U.S. 52, 6 Sup.Ct. 608; Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U.S. 711, 2 Sup.Ct. 128; In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 8 Sup.Ct. 164, Louisiana v. Steele, 134 U.S. 230, 10 Sup.Ct. 511. In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 8 Sup.Ct. 164, Mr. Justice Matthews said, of the purpose of the eleventh amendment:
The present case comes clearly within the line of cases to which these words apply. It is a case in which the state of California is alone interested as defendant. No personal relief is sought as against the state treasurer, no act of his is brought in question, and no official misconduct is charged against him. So far as he is concerned, the action is purely impersonal. It was originally begun against McDonald his predecessor in office. It is the aim of the action to recover from the state treasurer, in his official capacity only, money which has been paid to the state for taxes, and mingled with other funds of the state. The money which the treasurer receives as such is kept by him in the vaults of the state treasury. It is so required by subdivision 1 of section 452 of the Political Code. If a judgment were rendered for plaintiff in the action, the treasurer, upon the controller's warrant, would be required to repay the tax money out of taxes so illegally collected, and to pay the costs out of the general fund of the treasury. The money sued for was not originally paid to the treasurer. It did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hackin v. Lockwood
...347, 89 L.Ed. 389 (1945); United States v. State of Mississippi, 380 U.S. 128, 85 S.Ct. 808, 13 L. Ed.2d 717 (1965); Smith v. Rackliffe, 87 F. 964 (9th Cir. 1898); Skokomish Indian Tribe v. France, 269 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1959); DeLong Corporation v. Oregon State Highway Com'n, 233 F.Supp. 7......
-
Barber v. Powell
... ... depends upon diverse citizenship that the citizenship of a ... receiver becomes important or is to be regarded. Smith v ... Rackliffe, 9 Cir., 87 F. 964. The right of removal in a ... case of this kind is purely statutory. Berens v. Byram, ... D.C., 26 F.2d 953 ... ...
-
Barber v. Powell
...the Federal courts depends upon diverse citizenship that the citizenship of a receiver becomes important or is to be regarded. Smith v. Rackliffe, 9 Cir, 87 F. 964. The right of removal in a case of this kind is purely statutory. Berens v. Byram, D.C, 26 F.2d 953. The precise question here ......
-
Ballaine v. Alaska Northern Ry. Co.
... ... of their official duties, is thoroughly well settled ... Peabody v. United States, 231 U.S. 530, 34 Sup.Ct ... 159, 58 L.Ed. 351; Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436, 20 ... Sup.Ct. 919, 44 L.Ed. 1140; Occidental Co. v. United ... States, 245 F. 817, 158 C.C.A. 157; Smith v ... ...