Smith v. Truman Reeves
Decision Date | 14 May 1900 |
Docket Number | No. 242,242 |
Parties | C. W. SMITH, as Receiver of the Atlantic & Pacific Railway Company, Plff. in Err. , v. TRUMAN REEVES, as Treasurer of the State of California |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. C. N. Sterry for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Wm. M. Abbott, Tirey L. Ford, and Georae A. Sturtevant for defendant in error.
This action was brought in the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of California by the receivers of the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation created under an act of Congress approved July 27, 1866 with authority to construct and maintain a railroad and telegraph line beginning at or near Springfield, Missouri, thence by a specified route to the Pacific Ocean. 14 Stat. at L. 292, chap. 278.
The original defendant was J. R. McDonald, as treasurer of the state of California. He was succeeded in office by Levi Rackliffe, W. S. Green, and Truman Reeves in the order named.
The relief sought was a judgment against the defendant 'as treasurer of the state of California,' for the sum of $2,272.80 with interest thereon from the date of the payment of that sum or any portion thereof to the state treasurer, together with the costs of the action.
Before bringing suit the receivers of the railroad company gave written notice to the comptroller of the state that they intended to bring an action against the state treasurer to recover from him the amount of the 'taxes paid by the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company, and by the receiver for it, to the state treasurer as and for taxes assessed against the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company in the state of California for the year 1893, by the state board of equalization.'
The action was brought under § 3669 of the Political Code of California, which is as follows:
The state treasurer, represented by the attorney general of the state, demurred to the complaint upon various grounds affecting the merits of the case, and also moved to dismiss the case upon the ground that the circuit court had no jurisdiction of the defendant or of the action.
The demurrer was sustained with leave to amend, and the motion to dismiss was denied. Reinhart v. McDonald, 76 Fed. Rep. 403.
An amended compaint was filed, but a demurrer to it was sustained, with leave to amend. No further amendment having bee f iled, the action was dismissed by the circuit court. Smith v. Rackliffe, 83 Fed. Rep. 983. That judgment was affirmed in the circuit court of appeals. 59 U. S. App. 428, 87 Fed. Rep. 964, 31 C. C. A. 328.
Is this suit to be regarded as one against the state of California? The adjudged cases permit only one answer to this question. Although the state, as such, is not made a party defendant, the suit is against one of its officers as treasurer; the relief sought is a judgment against that officer in his official capacity; and that judgment would compel him to pay out of the public funds in the treasury of the state a certain sum of money. Such a judgment would have the same effect as if it were rendered directly against the state for the amount specified in the complaint. This case is unlike those in which we have held that a suit would lie by one person against another person to recover possession of specific property, although the latter claimed that he was in possession as an officer of the state and not otherwise. In such a case, the settled doctrine of this court is that the question of possession does not cease to be a judicial question—as between the parties actually before the court—because the defendant asserts or suggests that the right of possession is in the state of which he is an officer or agent. Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204, 221, 42 L. ed. 137, 143, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770, and authorities there cited. In the present case the action is not to recover specific moneys in the hands of the state treasurer, nor to compel him to perform a plain ministerial duty. It is to enforce the liability of the state to pay a certain amount of money on account of the payment of taxes alleged to have been wrongfully exacted by the state from the plaintiffs. Nor is it a suit to enjoin the defendant from doing some positive or affirmative act to the injury of the plaintiffs in their persons or property, but one in effect to compel the state, through its officer, to perform its promise to return to taxpayers such amount as may be adjudged to have been taken from them under an illegal assessment.
The case, in some material aspects, is like that of Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711, 726-728, 27 L. ed. 448, 453, 454, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 128, 140-142. That was a proceeding by mandamus against officers of Louisiana to compel them to use the public moneys in the state treasury for the retirement of certain bonds issued by the state, but which it subsequently refused to recognize as valid obligations, and directed its officers not to pay. This court said:
We are clearly of opinion that within the meaning of the constitutional provisions relating to actions instituted by private persons against a state, this suit, though in form against an officer of the state, is against the state itself. Re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 31 L. ed. 216, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 164; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1, 10, 35 L. ed. 363, 365, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 699.
But it is contended that by the section of the Political Code of California above quoted the state has consented that its treasurer may be sued in respect of the matters specified in that section, and it is argued that this case comes within the decision in Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527, 529, 15 L. ed. 991, 992, in which it was said to be an established principle of jurisprudence in all civilized nations that while the sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts or in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bolmer v. Oliveira
...suit in state court, like CFEPA, are not waivers of Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436, 441, 20 S.Ct. 919, 44 L.Ed. 1140 (1900) ("A state does not consent to suit in federal court by consenting to suit in the courts of its own By Connecticu......
-
Lee v. Dep't of Children & Families
...Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 676, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999) (citing Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436, 441–45, 20 S.Ct. 919, 44 L.Ed. 1140 (1900)); see also Port Auth. Trans–Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 306, 110 S.Ct. 1868, 109 L.Ed.2d 264 (1990) ......
-
In re Janc
...must be: a statement consenting to suit in the courts of its own creation does not waive immunity, Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436, 441-45, 20 S.Ct. 919, 921-23, 44 L.Ed. 1140 (1900); a declaration of the state's intention that it or one of its agencies can "sue or be sued" does not waive imm......
-
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, 18 ... Jumel, 107 U.S. 711 at 718, 720, 721 & 722, 2 Sup.Ct ... 128, 27 L.Ed. 448; Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436 at ... 438, 20 Sup.Ct. 919, 44 L.Ed. 1140; Johnson v ... Lankford, 245 U.S. 541 at ... ...
-
Citizen Suits Against States and Territories and the Eleventh Amendment
...497 (1921) (same); Duhne v. New Jersey, 251 U.S. 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. Louisi......
-
THE MISUNDERSTOOD ELEVENTH AMENDMENT.
...quotation marks and citation omitted). (21) Hans, 134 U.S. at 1. (22) Monaco, 292 U.S. at 330-32 (foreign principality); Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436, 440-41 (1900) (federally chartered (23) In re New York, 256 U.S. 490, 497, 500 (1921). (24) E.g., Coleman v. Ct. of Appeals, 566 U.S. 30, 4......
-
Overcoming immunity: the case of federal regulation of intellectual property.
...state may lawfully waive immunity from suit in state court while preserving its immunity from suit in federal court, see Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436, 441 (1900). (84.) See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543-44 (1981); Loftin v. Thomas, 681 F.2d 364, 365 (5th Cir. 1982). (85.) Williams v......
-
Pleading sovereign immunity: the doctrinal underpinnings of Hans v. Louisiana and Ex Parte Young.
...what history we pick. (262.) Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 779 (1991) (citations omitted). (263.) Smith v. Reeves, 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 ......