Fay v. Crozer

Supreme Court

Fay v. Crozer

217 U.S. 455, 30 S. Ct. 568, 54 L. Ed. 837, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1971

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 2, 1910

Docket165

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 217 U.S. 455 (Fay v. Crozer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fay v. Crozer, 217 U.S. 455, 30 S. Ct. 568, 54 L. Ed. 837, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1971 (1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the'Southern District of West .Virginia, brought directly to this court, and as such falls within the rule that the. controversy must be substantial and the question open to discussion.. Tested by that rule, we think the writ of error must be dismissed on the authority of King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404; King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92. And see King v. Panther Lumber Company, 171 U. S. 437; Swann v. State, 188 U. S. 739, It is contended' that the question of the forfeiture of plaintiffs’ title under the constitution of West Virginia was hot ruled in those, cases, because- théy also involved the statute .of the State, referred to, while this case ' presents the validity of the forfeiture provision of the state constitution alone. But’ it was-pointed out in King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 100, that the right to redeem given by the statute was. not coextensive with the forfeiture under the state constitution, and yet the constitution was upheld,' as it was in ' King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404. I.t follows, therefore, that the státe constitution must be upheld in the present case. The . only hearing that could be necessary would be whether the facts- constitute a forfeiture,- and that question when it arises • between a.former owner and a claimant under the State can be tried in a case between..those parties, as it was here. There is no greater objection under the Constitution off the' United-• States to. the forfeiture of land- for five years’ neglect' to pay . taxes than "there is to a similar'-forfeiture by- the statute of limitations for.neglect to assert title against one. by whom-the ' former owner has been .disseised. We think, that the question, suggested is so plainly covered-by. the preceding cases that the writ of error must be dismissed.

It is so ordered,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the'Southern District of West .Virginia, brought directly to this court, and as such falls within the rule that the. controversy must be substantial and the question open to discussion.. Tested by that rule, we think the writ of error must be dismissed on the authority of King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404; King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92. And see King v. Panther Lumber Company, 171 U. S. 437; Swann v. State, 188 U. S. 739, It is contended' that the question of the forfeiture of plaintiffs’ title under the constitution of West Virginia was hot ruled in those, cases, because- théy also involved the statute .of the State, referred to, while this case ' presents the validity of the forfeiture provision of the state constitution alone. But’ it was-pointed out in King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 100, that the right to redeem given by the statute was. not coextensive with the forfeiture under the state constitution, and yet the constitution was upheld,' as it was in ' King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404. I.t follows, therefore, that the státe constitution must be upheld in the present case. The . only hearing that could be necessary would be whether the facts- constitute a forfeiture,- and that question when it arises • between a.former owner and a claimant under the State can be tried in a case between..those parties, as it was here. There is no greater objection under the Constitution off the' United-• States to. the forfeiture of land- for five years’ neglect' to pay . taxes than "there is to a similar'-forfeiture by- the statute of limitations for.neglect to assert title against one. by whom-the ' former owner has been .disseised. We think, that the question, suggested is so plainly covered-by. the preceding cases that the writ of error must be dismissed.

It is so ordered,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 U.S. 455, 30 S. Ct. 568, 54 L. Ed. 837, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 1971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fay-v-crozer-scotus-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack