Smith v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 21 February 1927
• Docket Number: No. 648,648
• Citation: 273 U.S. 388,71 L.Ed. 699,47 S.Ct. 385
• Parties: SMITH et al. v. WILSON et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

273 U.S. 388

47 S.Ct. 385

71 L.Ed. 699

SMITH et al.

v WILSON et al.

No. 648.

Argued Jan. 5, 6, 1927.

Decided Feb. 21, 1927.

Messrs. A. D. Lipscomb, of Beaumont, Tex., and Frederick S. Tyler, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Mr. A. R. Rucks, of Angleton, Tex., for appellees.

Mr. Justice STONEdelivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellants, some of whom are citizens of Texas, filed their bill in the District Court for Southern Texas against appellees, the county commissioners of Brazoria county, certain tax officials of that country, and the commissioners of the Brazos River harbor navigation district and others, all citizens of Texas.The relief prayed was a preliminary and final injunction restraining appellees from levying assessments on appellants' land and from issuing or selling bonds pursuant to a plan authorized by the Act of February 19, 1925, c. 5, General Laws of Texas, § 7, creating a taxing district to raise funds to defray the cost of a proposed improvement of navigation at the mouth of the Brazos river.

The jurisdiction of the district court was based solely upon allegations in the bill that the Texas statutes and the proceedings had under them for the formation of the Brazos River harbor navigation district violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution.

No application was made for a preliminary injunction.Testimony was taken before a special master and final hearing had before three judges on the assumption that a trial by three judges was required by section 266 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925, § 1 (Comp. St. § 1243).From the judgment of the district court, dismissing the bill on the merits, (13 F.(2d) 1007), the case has been brought here by direct appeal under sections 238and266 of the Judicial Codeas amended(Comp. St. 1215, 1243), which permit an appeal from a final decree in an injunction suit of this kind in which the final hearing must be had before three judges, as provided in that section.The jurisdiction of this court turns on whether or not section 266, as amended, required the hearing below to be before three judges.

Section 266 before the amendment of February 13, 1925, required, as it still does, all applications for an interlocutory injunction testraining state officers from enforcing state statutes or orders of administrative boards or com- missions, upon the ground of unconstitutionality, to be heard by a court of three judges.But as the section then stood, the final hearing might be had before a single district judge who might arrive at a different conclusion from that reached on the preliminary hearing by the three judges, one of whom was a justice of the Supreme Court or a circuit judge.ComparePatterson v. Mobile Gas Co., 271 U. S. 131, 46 S. Ct. 445, 70 L. Ed. 870, andLemke v. Farmers' Grain Co., 258 U. S. 50, 42 S. Ct. 244, 66 L. Ed. 458.To remove this anomaly and save the right of direct appeal to this court from the operation of the repealing provisions of the Act of February 13, 1925, section 266 was amended by the addition of the following provisions:

'The requirement respecting the presence of three judges shall also apply to the final hearing in such suit in the district court; and a direct appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken from a final decree granting or denying a permanent injunction in such suit.'

SeeEx parte Buder, 271 U. S. 461, 465, 46 S. Ct. 577, 70 L. Ed. 1036.

It...