Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/97010/ex-parte-bransford
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:55:35+00:00

Document:
1. Mandamus is proper to review error of a district court in refusing to call in additional judges, under Jud.Code § 266, in a suit praying an interlocutory injunction against state officers. P. 310 U. S. 355 .
2. The application for mandamus may be made by one of several defendants. P. 310 U. S. 356 .
3. A suit by a national bank to enjoin the collection of a state tax is not a suit to restrain the enforcement of a statute of the State "upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute," within the meaning of Jud.Code § 266, where the bill makes no attack upon the state legislation involved, but alleges that state officials have misconstrued it and have made an assessment which is unconstitutional because excessive and discriminatory and which is also invalid because it discriminates against national bank shares in violation of R.S. § 5219, and includes preferred shares of the bank owned by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which are exempt under the Act of Congress of March 20, 1936. P. 310 U. S. 357 .
Assessments are made in the first instance by county assessors, with an appeal allowed first to a county and then to a state board of equalization. The state board returns the final assessment with a levy of the rate for state purposes to the county supervisors. This body adds the several local rates and places the assessment upon the tax roll. Collection is performed by the county treasurer, [ Footnote 3 ] and the taxes collected are apportioned between state and county. [ Footnote 4 ] Where a bank is doing business in several counties, the value of its stock is apportioned among the counties in accordance with the assets located in each. [ Footnote 5 ] Because other property in the state has been under-assessed the state board, in 1935, ordered that bank shares be valued at 75% of capital stock, surplus and undivided profit. Assets, borrowings, deposits, and other liabilities are disregarded.
that the assessment complained of is made properly under the statutes and that, by the statute, the assessment is to be prorated among the common shares, it would determine only a question of statutory construction. It is necessary to distinguish between a petition for injunction on the ground of the unconstitutionality of a statute as applied, which requires a three-judge court, [ Footnote 15 ] and a petition which seeks an injunction on the ground of the unconstitutionality of the result obtained by the use of a statute which is not attacked as unconstitutional. The latter petition does not require a three-judge court. [ Footnote 16 ] In such a case, the attack is aimed at an allegedly erroneous administrative action. [ Footnote 17 ] Until the complainant in the district court attacks the constitutionality of the statute, the case does not require the convening of a three-judge court, any more than if the complaint did not seek an interlocutory injunction. [ Footnote 18 ] Where, by an omission to attack the constitutionality of a state statute, its validity is admitted for the purposes of the bill, a determination by the trial court that the assessment accords with the statute would result in the refusal of the injunction and the dismissal of the bill. Jurisdiction, properly assumed, may be lost by the special court when it appears that a prerequisite such as need for relief against state officers is lacking. [ Footnote 19 ] Even where the statute is attacked as unconstitutional, § 266 is inapplicable unless the action complained of is directly attributable to the statute. [ Footnote 20 ] There is no indication that Congress sought by § 266 to have every attack on the constitutionality of a state statute determined by a three-judge court.
Ex parte Williams, 277 U. S. 267 , 277 U. S. 269 ; Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 282 U. S. 10 , 282 U. S. 16 .
Pittman v. Home Owners' Loan Corp., 308 U. S. 21 .
R.S. § 5219; Owensboro Nat. Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 664 , 173 U. S. 668 .
271 U. S. 271 U.S. 461, 271 U. S. 465 -466.
258 U. S. 258 U.S. 50, 258 U. S. 52 .
Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397 , 192 U. S. 407 .
Cf. Ex parte Williams, 277 U. S. 267 , 277 U. S. 271 ; Jett Bros. Co. v. Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1 , 252 U. S. 5 .
Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 282 U. S. 10 .
Ex parte Hobbs, 280 U. S. 168 .
Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 282 U. S. 10 , 282 U. S. 15 .
Oklahoma Gas Co. v. Packing Co., 292 U. S. 386 , 292 U. S. 391 .
Ex parte Collins, 277 U. S. 565 , 277 U. S. 567 , 569.

References: § 266
 § 266
 § 5219
 § 266
 § 266
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5219
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.