State ex rel. Craighead County v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

• Decision Date: 11 February 1924
• Docket Number: 150
• Parties: STATE EX REL. CRAIGHEAD COUNTY v. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

258 S.W. 609

162 Ark. 443

STATE EX REL. CRAIGHEAD COUNTY v. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY

No. 150

Supreme Court of Arkansas

February 11, 1924

Appeal from Craighead Chancery Court, Western District; J. M Furtell, Chancellor; affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

J S. Utley, Attorney General, and A. P. Patton and Horace Sloan, for Craighead County.

Diversity of citizenship gives the Federal court jurisdiction to determine questions of State law. 42 S.Ct. 375; 213 U.S 175;, 29 S.Ct. 451; 53 L. ed. 753; 231 U.S. 294; 34 S.Ct. 48 68 L. ed. 229; 43 S.Ct. 192; 43 S.Ct. 51. "Full faith and credit" due to a Federal court judgment constitutes a Federal question. 169 U.S. 465; 18 S.Ct. 415; 42 L. ed. 819; 120 U.S. 141; 7 S.Ct. 472; 191 U.S. 499; 24 S.Ct. 154; 48 L. ed. 276; 184 U.S. 497; 146 U.S. 657; 36 L. ed. 1123; 6 Wall. 166, 18 L. ed. 768; 7 How. 72; 237 U.S. 477; 153 U.S. 671; 107 U.S. 3; 27 L. ed. 346. Taxpayers are bound by an award of mandamus against officers of taxing district. 133 N.Y. 187, 30 N.E. 965, 31 N.E. 334, 28 Am. St. 610; 2 Van Fleet, Former Adjudication, p. 1153. A judgment at law must first be obtained before mandamus to enforce collection will issue. 106 U.S. 663; 102 U.S. 187; 105 U.S. 237; 129 U.S. 44. Mandamus, after judgment, is a substitute for the ordinary process of execution. 9 Wall. 415; 6 Wall. 166; 122 U.S. 306; 6 Wall. 210; 132 U.S. 210; 102 U.S. 472; 24 Hw. 376; 34 Ark. 291; 48 Ark. 331; 96 Ark. 465. Neither a State nor a Federal court can enjoin proceedings in the other. 61 W.Va. 183; 11, Ann. Cas. 741; 9 Wall. 409; 188 U.S. 537; 172 U.S. 148; 4 Dill. 224. A judgment of a Federal court cannot be assailed collaterally in a State court. 17 S.W. 502; 109 U.S. 162; 62 Cal. 40. The Federal court had jurisdiction to require the assessing officers to make a full value assessment. 222 F. 489; 239 U.S. 641. Contra, see 127 Ark. 349; 129 Ark. 41; 130 Ark. 259. In such case, the Federal courts may determine for themselves what the State law is. 263 F. 856;107 U.S. 20; 215 U.S. 349; 275 F. 747; 119 U.S. 680; 120 U.S. 759; 190 U.S. 437; 193 U.S. 532; 215 U.S. 349. But, as to contracts made after a State court's decision, the Federal court will follow the State court. 18 Wall. 71; 101 U.S. 677. However, the court's decision must be on the precise point involved. 131 F. 705; 134 F. 423; 130 F. 251; 123 F. 480; 85 F. 180. Where a State court has decided a Federal question, its decision, though erroneous, is binding on collateral attack. 51 F. 858; 53 F. 411; 202 F. 82. A State court cannot challenge the jurisdiction of a Federal court to render a particular judgment. 67 Ark. 469; 213 U.S. 207; 152 U.S. 327; 198 U.S. 188; 151 Ky. 185, 151 S.W. 404; 63 S.C. 542, 41 S.E. 761. Where a court has jurisdiction, its judgment is binding until reversed in a proper proceeding. 7 How. 612; 107 F. 305; 199 P. 696. Though a State court's decision of a Federal question is erroneous, the Federal courts will not annul it on collateral attack. 132 U.S. 210; 20 Wash. 396; 72 Am. St. 110; 109 Tenn. 315; 70 S.W. 1031; 10 N. M. 416; 62 P. 987; 5 S.D. 539; 59 N.W. 833; 26 L. R. A. 493; 104 F. 113; 43 C. C. A. 429; 79 F. 567; 25 C. C. A. 87; 80 F. 686; 25 C. C. A. 469; 97 F. 435; 38 C. C. A. 250; 85 F. 189; 29 C. C. A. 106; 28 F. 407; 106 F. 459; 45 C. C. A. 429; 55 Ark. 398; 22 Ark. 550; 75 Ark. 415; 68 Ark. 83; 64 S.C. 374; 42 S.E. 180; 14 Wis. 180; 134 N.Y. 461; 31 N.E. 987; 30 Am. St. 685; 37 N.Y. 511; 43 N.Y. 184; 105 Ark. 450. A Federal court may compel an assessment on a full valuation for the payment of indebtedness. 97 U.S. 300; 99 U.S. 152. The assessment conformed to the order of the Federal court. Hays v. Missouri Pac. Rd. Co., 159 Ark. 101; 62 Ark. 461; 92 Ark. 492; 127 Ark. 349. It is not necessary that the assessment for all purposes should be doubled. 57 Ark. 509.

Thomas B. Pryor and Gordon Frierson, for Missouri Pac. Rd. Co., and W. F. Evans and W. J. Orr, for St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.; Gautney & Dudley and E. L. Westbrooke, of counsel.

The assessment was not made as the writ of manda-mus commanded. 62 Ark. 461; 92 Ark. 492; 124 Ark. 569; 127 Ark. 349; 129 Ark. 41; 250 S.W. 879; 244 U.S. 499; 101 U.S. 153; 209 F. 380; 270 F. 369; 283 F. 318; 28 A. 523; 51 N.H. 455; 58 N.H. 38; 44 Ill. 229; 54 Kan. 781; 274 F. 630; 157 N.W. 731; 74 A. 67; 112 N.E. 700; 85 F. 302; 258 F. 458; 222 F. 568; 199 F. 237. Mandamus will not issue to compel the performance of an act not required by law. 127 Ark. 349; 77 F. 567; 23 C. C. A. 236; 95 U.S. 769; 99 U.S. 591; 155 U.S. 1; 30 Ark. 450; 46 Ark. 312; 47 Ark. 80; 104 Ark. 590. A writ which commands officers to violate the Constitution is void. 104 U.S. 604. This court is the final arbiter in the construction of the Constitution and laws of this State. 127 Ark. 349; 44 S.Ct. 40; Id. 50; Id. 62; 258 F. 458; 244 U.S. 499.

MCCULLOCH C. J. HART, J., dissenting.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

There are two consolidated actions involved in this appeal, one against the defendant, St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, and the other against the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, each instituted in the chancery court of Craighead County by the Attorney General, in the name of the State of Arkansas, for the use and benefit of Craighead County, to recover delinquent county taxes due for the years 1921 and 1922.

It is alleged in the complaint that all property in Craighead County was assessed, for all purposes other than for county taxation, at fifty per centum of its actual value, so as to conform to the rate of assessment in other counties, but that there was a separate assessment for county purposes at one hundred per centum valuation, and that this was done under the requirement of a man-damus issued by the United States District Court, in a suit instituted by a creditor of the county to recover on past due indebtedness. It was also alleged that said defendants in each case had paid the taxes extended against its respective property for all purposes other than county taxation, but had each refused to pay the county taxes as extended, and had tendered the amount of taxes due on a fifty per centum valuation. Each of the defendants, in its answer, challenged the validity of the assessment, on the ground that it was contrary to the laws of this State as interpreted by the court of last resort, and also denied that there had been any assessment of real property by the Tax Commission at a valuation of one hundred per centum.

The facts in the case are undisputed. On February 17, 1921, the United States District Court for the Western Division of the Eastern District of Arkansas, in an action in which an incorporated fraternal association, named the Maccabees, was plaintiff, and Craighead County was defendant, rendered a judgment in favor of said plaintiff and against said defendant for recovery of the sum of $ 77,680; and on March 2, 1921, said court, in an action instituted by said plaintiff, the Maccabees, against the assessing officers and clerk of Craighead County, and the members of the State Tax Commission, to compel said officers to assess the taxes to pay said judgment against the county, entered a judgment directing that a mandamus issue against the assessing officers and the State Tax Commission, requiring an assessment of property for taxes at full valuation. The particular language of this judgment was that "a mandamus issue requiring the defendant to assess, at its full value in money, all property in Craighead County, and to continue said assessment at its full value in money until the judgment of the plaintiff herein for $ 77,680 and costs shall have been paid in full."

It does not appear, from the record in this case, that the Tax Commission made any change in its assessment of railroad property for the year 1921, but let its assessment stand, as made throughout the State on railroad property, at a valuation of fifty per centum. The assessor of Craighead County, however, assessed all property in Craighead County at fifty per centum for all purposes other than county taxes, and made a separate assessment for county purposes at one hundred per centum of the valuation, using an extra column on the assessment books for such separate assessment.

In the year 1922 the State Tax Commission, in compliance with the said mandamus issued by the United States District Court, adopted a resolution applicable to the taxable property of Craighead County, commanding the assessor of Craighead County to "double the amount of the assessment as shown by the certificates of this Commission, for the purpose of extending thereon the general county tax rate for Craighead County, Arkansas, and that he show in a separate column said fifty per centum assessment for the purpose of extending State, three-mill county road tax, school district tax and municipal corporation tax thereon." In each of the years the taxes were extended on the books for county purposes on the basis of one hundred per centum valuation, but for all other purposes on the basis of fifty per centum valuation. Each of the defendants in these actions paid the taxes for all other purposes, but refused to pay the taxes extended against its property for county purposes, and tendered the amount due on an extension based on a valuation of fifty per centum. The tender was refused, and this action was instituted to compel the payment.

The chancellor held that the assessment at full valuation for county purposes was void, and rendered a decree for the recovery by plaintiff of the amount of taxes tendered by each of the defendants; that is to say, the amount of taxes on a basis of fifty per centum valuation.

We are unable to agree with the learned chancellor in his view that the judgment of the United States District Court is void because...