Court Opinion

ID: 7812623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:14:33.813752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:28:31.071834
License: Public Domain

Hart, J., (dissenting). Judge Humphreys and myself think that the opinion of the chancellor, that the judgment of the Federal court awarding the writ of mandamus was void, is correct, and for that reason the decree of the chancery court should be affirmed. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States was intended to give conclusive effect to judgments of all the States, so as to promote uniformity as well as certainty in the rule among them. 2 Story on the Constitution, 5 ed., § 1307. The opinion of the majority tends to place assessing officers between two fires by subjecting them to contradictory orders, and impedes rather than promotes uniformity and certainty in judgments of courts sitting in the same State. The only excuse for levying and collecting the taxes in question is for the support of the State and county governments. The confusion which might result from the majority opinion is calculated to interfere with the administration of the government of the State. To illustrate: The writ of mandamus was awarded in the Federal court on a judgment by default in favor of the holders of county warrants against the assessing officers. This might or might not have been the result of an agreement between the parties to the suit. Suppose a similar suit had been filed in the State court by the holders of other county warrants, and, upon the intervention of taxpayers, the case had been transferred to equity, and a decree obtained enjoining the assessing officers from making any such assessment. Then the order awarding the writ of mandamus in the Federal court would command the assessor to do the very thing which, by the injunction, he was forbidden to do. He would be guilty of contempt of court in failing to obey the order of whichever court he failed to obey. Thus we would have two courts sitting in the same State, deciding the same rights, arising in the same way, under the same provision of the Constitution, with directly opposite results. This court has already construed the clause of our Constitution in question directly opposite to the construction placed upon it by the Federal Court of Appeals, which was followed by the Federal District Court in .awarding the writ of mandamus. It is not pretended that the construction we have placed upon the sections of our Constitution is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. It is well settled that to the highest court of a State belongs the right to construe its own statutes and Constitution, except where they may conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Nor is it denied that, where such a construction has been given by a State court, the Supreme Court of the United States is bound to follow it. The power to assess property for State and county purposes is derived solely from the Constitution and statutes of a State; and the authority is limited or restricted by the construction of the State Supreme Court of its own Constitution and statutes. If the Federal courts can, under proper circumstances, issue their writs of mandamus for the purpose of compelling the assessor to assess property, it is evident that the State courts have as full and complete jurisdiction in the matter as the Federal courts possess. Suppose that a State court had issued its injunction, after due course of legal proceedings begun by holders of county warrants, and that the Federal court had issued its writ of mandamus at the instance of the holders of other warrants, the principle that, in cases of concurrent jurisdiction between State and Federal courts, the court which first acquires jurisdiction shall have the exclusive right to decide the matter .in issue, could not apply. The reason is that, although the defendants in the two suits are the same, the plaintiffs would be different persons, seeking to enforce distinct and separate rights. They could in no sense be said to be in privity with each other because each of them was the holder of warrants of the same county. Therefore we believe that the Federal court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the assessing officers to assess property in defiance of a construction of this court of the Constitution and statute, under which alone they had power to act.