State of Colorado v. Toll
| Decision Date | 11 May 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 234,234 |
| Citation | 69 L.Ed. 927,45 S.Ct. 505,1925 A. M. C. 779,268 U.S. 228 |
| Parties | STATE OF COLORADO v. TOLL |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Wm. L. Boatright, of Denver, Colo., and Paul W. Lee and George H. Shaw, both of Fort Collins, Colo., for the State of Colorado.
Mr. Harry L. Underwood, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
This is a bill brought in the District Court by the State of Colorado to enjoin the superintendent of the Rocky Mountain National Park from enforcing certain regulations for the government of the park, which are alleged to be beyond the authority conferred by Acts of Congress and to interfere with the sovereign rights of the State. These regulations forbid any person to reside permanently, engage in any business, or erect buildings in the park without permission in writing from the Director of the National Parks Service, provide for the removal of disorderly persons and forbid their return without permission from the Director, and impose a fine or imprisonment or both for violating these regulations, the defendant, it seems, being the sole judge. The special subject of complaint is a further regulation subject to similar penalties that——
It is alleged that the defendant and his superior officers assert full authority over all highways in the park to the exclusion of the State and refuse permission to anyone operating automobiles for hire except one corporation which has received a permit. It is alleged that he asserts the right to exact a license fee from privately owned vehicles, although it does not appear that this has been done in this park. There are many thousands of acres in the park owned by private persons, and there are houses and hotels that were built before the park was laid out. It is feared that the same jurisdiction will be exercised over the forest reservations in the State and it is alleged that all the main highways connecting the eastern and western parts of the State traverse either the reservations or the park, which last contains about 400 square miles. The roads were built by counties and the State under the grant of right in Revised Statutes, § 2477 (Comp. St. § 4919), before the park was laid out. It is alleged that the State never has ceded its power. The bill was dismissed for want of equity by the District Court.
The object of the bill is to restrain an individual from doing acts that it is alleged that he has no authority to do and that derogate from the quasi-sovereign authority of the State. There is no question that a bill in equity is a proper remedy and that it may be pursued against the defendant without joining either his superior officers or the United States. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, 431, 40 S. Ct. 382, 64 L. Ed. 641, 11 A. L. R. 984; Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605, 619, 620, 32 S. Ct. 340, 56 L. Ed. 570. As the bill was dismissed upon the merits it is not necessary to say more upon this preliminary question. Also the direct appeal to this Court is proper as the State complains of an infringement of its right in the highways and of its other reserved powers and the case as made involves the construction of the Constitution of the United States.
The park was created by the Act of January 26, 1915, c. 19; 38 Stat. 798 (Comp. St. § 5249a et seq.). By section 2 the Act is not to 'affect any valid * * *...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rank v. Krug
...U.S. 228, 41 S.Ct. 314, 65 L.Ed. 598; Scranton v. Wheeler, 1900, 179 U.S. 141, 21 S.Ct. 48, 45 L.Ed. 126; State of Colorado v. Toll, 1925, 268 U.S. 228, 45 S.Ct. 505, 69 L.Ed. 927; and Land v. Dollar, 1949, 330 U.S. 731, 67 S.Ct. 1009, 91 L.Ed. 1209; and the recent case of Williams v. Fanni......
-
Randolph v. Willis
...equity will intervene to keep agents of the Federal Government within the bounds of their lawful powers State of Colorado v. Toll, 268 U.S. 228, 230, 45 S.Ct. 505, 69 L.Ed. 228 (1925); Wells v. Roper, 246 U.S. 335, 338, 38 S.Ct. 317, 62 L.Ed. 755 (1918); Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U.S......
-
City of Atlanta v. National Bituminous Coal Com'n
...ADKINS, Associate Justice, concur. 1 Act of August 24, 1937, c. 754, 50 Stat. 751, 28 U.S.C.A. § 380a. 2 Cf. State of Colorado v. Toll, 268 U. S. 228, 45 S.Ct. 505, 69 L.Ed. 927; Com. of Pennsylvania v. State of West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 43 S.Ct. 658, 67 L.Ed. 1117, 32 A.L.R. 300; Ashton......
-
Gray v. Commodity Credit Corporation
...U.S. 388, 44 S.Ct. 532, 68 L.Ed. 1068; Webster v. Fall, 1925, 266 U.S. 507, 45 S.Ct. 148, 69 L. Ed. 411; State of Colorado v. Toll, 1925, 268 U.S. 228, 45 S.Ct. 505, 69 L.Ed. 927; Neher v. Harwood, 1942, 9 Cir., 128 F.2d 846. In the case last cited, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recogn......
-
CHAPTER 1 FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, AND INDIAN JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS ON RECLAMATION, LAND USE, AND ZONING
...at 822. [97] McKelvey v. United States, 260 U.S. 353, 359 (1922); Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U.S. 343, 352 (1918). [98] Colorado v. Toll, 268 U.S. 228, 231 (1924); Texas Oil & Gas Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., supra at note 80; United States v. Hatahley, supra at 671; Hagood v. Heckers,......
-
CHAPTER 7 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RESTRAINTS ON OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
...Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 544 n.12, (1976). In making this statement, the Court was construing the holding in Colorado v. Toll, 268 U.S. 228 (1925), where it was held that the state was entitled to prove that Congress had neither assumed exclusive legislative jurisdiction by cessi......
-
The Doctrine of Preemption and Regulating Oil and Gas Development
...& Gas Conservation Comm'n, 693 P.2d 227 (Wyo. 1985). 48. Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U.S. 440 (1960). 49. Colorado v. Toll, 268 U.S. 228 (1925). 50. Texas Oil and Gas Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 277 F.Supp. 366 (D.Okla. 1967), aff'd, 406 F.2d 1303 (10th Cir. 1969); Ventur......