Shaffer v. Howard, 249 U.S. 200 (1919). · Go Syfert
Search
Shaffer v. Howard, 249 U.S. 200 (1919). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Acheson v. Furusho (ca9, 1954-04-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1920 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1920 1973 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Acheson v. Furusho
9th Cir. · 1954 · confidence medium
In Richardson v. McChesney, 1910, 218 U.S. 487 , 31 S.Ct. 43 , 54 L.Ed. 1121 ; Pullman Co. v. Croom, 1913, 231 U.S. 571 , 34 S.Ct. 182 , 58 L.Ed. 375 , and Shaffer v. Howard, 1919, 249 U.S. 200 , 39 S.Ct. 255 , 63 L.Ed. 559 , abatement was or dered as in the Boutwell case and for the same reason, since the Act of 1899, modifying abatement, did not affect cases in state courts.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Acheson, Secretary of State v. Fujiko Furusho. Ng Kwock Gee v. Acheson, Secretary of State. Wong Sho Ging v. McGranery Atty. Gen. Acheson, Secretary of State v. Lee Wing Bew
9th Cir. · 1954 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court ordered the writ of error dismissed since the action against McAdoo had abated, twelve months having elapsed after his resignation and no substitution having been made. 24 In Richardson v. McChesney, 1910, 218 U.S. 487 , 31 S.Ct. 43 , 54 L.Ed. 1121 ; Pullman Co. v. Croom, 1913, 231 U.S. 571 , 34 S.Ct. 182 , 58 L.Ed. 375 , and Shaffer v. Howard, 1919, 249 U.S. 200 , 39 S. Ct. 255 , 63 L.Ed. 559 , abatement was ordered as in the Boutwell case and for the same reason, since the Act of 1899, modifying abatement, did not affect cases in state courts. 25 In Murphy v. Utter, 1902, 1…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Shaffer
v.
Howard, Auditor of the State of Oklahoma, Et Al.
375.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 10, 1919.
249 U.S. 200
1919 U.S. LEXIS 2191
Mr. Malcolm E. Rosser, with whom Mr. George S. Ramsey, Mr. Edgar A. de Meules, Mr. Villard Martin and Mr. J. Berry King were on the brief, for appellant.', Mr. S. P. Freeling, Attorney General of the .State of Oklahoma, with' whom Mr. C. W. King, Assistant Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, was on the brief, for appelleés..
White.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice White.

This suit was commenced against E. B. Howard, auditor of the State of Oklahoma,' and John S. Woofter, shériff of Creek County in that State, to enjoin such officials from enforcing a tax levied under the law of Oklahoma on the ground of the repugnancy of such tax to the Constitution of the United States.- The court refused an injunction and dismissed the bill for want of equity, and the case was brought here.

[*201] Counsel for both parties having stated in answer to an inquiry on the subject submitted to them by the court while the cause was pending after argument under submission that the term of office of the defendant officials had expired and their successors had qualified, and that there was no law of the State of Oklahoma authorizing a revival or continuance of the cause of action against such successors, it follows that the controversy has become merely moot and that we have no authority to further consider or dispose of it. Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U. S. 28, 34; Chandler v. Dix, 194 U. S. 590, 592; Pullman Co. v. Croom, 231 U. S. 571, 575.

True it is that counsel, in agreeing as to the statement above referred to, suggest that, although the successors in office of the former defendants intend in the discharge of their official duties to enforce the tax complained of unless enjoined from doing so, nevertheless, in view of the importance to the people of the State that the subject-matter of the controversy be here determined, a decision should be made of the pending cause irrespective of the disappearance of the parties defendant. But the absence of power which results from such disappearance cannot be supplied by the request referred to since after all it amounts to but a suggestion that that be done which there is no authority to do; in other words that the cause be decided in the absence of the parties whose presence is essential to its decision. United States v. Boutwell, 17 Wall. 604, 609; United States ex rel. Bernardin v. Butterworth, 169 U. S. 600, 609; Pullman Co. v. Croom, 231 U. S. 571, 576.

It follows therefore that the decree below must be reversed, and the cause be remanded with directions to dismiss the bill for want of proper parties,

And it is so ordered.