This writ of error is dismissed because the record presents no
federal question properly raised, and because the judgment of the
state court rests upon an independent ground, broad enough to
maintain it, and involving no federal question.
The plaintiff in error, as plaintiff below, filed a bill in a
district court in a county in Colorado to restrain the collection
of taxes which had been assessed against him. An injunction being
refused, he filed a second bill, in another court in another
county, seeking the same remedy. An injunction being issued there,
the cause was taken to the supreme court of the state, where the
decree was reversed and the injunction dissolved. The following
extracts from the opinion of the court, found in the record, show
the grounds upon which that decree, to which this writ of error was
sued out, rested.
"The record discloses that the appellee, Haley, has
instituted
Page 144 U. S. 131
and prosecuted two injunction suits against the appellant for
the accomplishment of the same purpose, to-wit, to prevent him from
enforcing, as county treasurer of Routt County, the collection of
taxes assessed against the personal property of the appellee
therein for the year 1884, by distraint and sale of a portion of
the same. The first suit was brought and prosecuted in the District
Court of Clear Creek County, and the present action in the District
Court of Pitkin County. The complaint in the former case stated
substantially the same grounds for enjoining the collection of
these taxes as that filed in the latter case, the principal ground
being the invalidity of the assessment. Additional grounds for
equitable relief are alleged in the present complaint, but they all
existed at the time of the former action, and it is not even
alleged that they were unknown to the appellee at the time the
original suit was pending. "
"The doctrine of the authorities is that when a complainant in
equity brings his suit, he must present to the court all the
grounds then existing for its support. He is not at liberty to
present a portion of the grounds upon which his claim for equitable
relief depends in one suit, and, if that fail, to present the rest
in another action. The former adjudication is held to be conclusive
in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties as to every
matter properly involved, and which might have been raised and
determined in it.
Ruegger v. Indianapolis & St. Louis
Railroad, 103 Ill. 456;
Kurtz v. Carr, 105 Ind. 574;
Stark v. Starr, 94 U. S. 477. "
"A copy of the complaint filed by said Haley in the former suit
was set out in the answer in this cause, showing the identity of
the causes of action of the relief sought, of the parties, and that
they prosecuted and defended in the same character, and it is
therein averred that this Court, by its opinion and judgment of
April 30, 1887, pronounced in that case, held the said assessment
to be valid, and that the injunction proceedings could not be
maintained, which former adjudication is alleged to be a complete
bar to the present action. This answer stands untraversed, and the
fact, therefore, of a
Page 144 U. S. 132
former adjudication of the same subject matter between the same
parties is decisive not only of this appeal, but of this action. It
appears from the record that there was a full and complete
adjudication in the original suit of the validity of these taxes,
and that the authority of the appellant, as Treasurer of Routt
County, to enforce their collection was therein sustained. There
was therefore no warrant of law for granting this second injunction
to restrain him from the performance of that duty."
And in denying a petition for a rehearing, the court said:
"The grounds of the decision rendered in April are plain and
simple, and cannot be questioned. The plaintiff failed to return to
the assessor a list of his taxable property, as required by
statute, and his property was listed by the assessor, as was his
duty under the statute. If he was assessed too high, or for too
much property, it was his duty to apply to the board of
equalization for correction of these errors, which he failed to do
either of his own accord or at the repeated solicitation of the
board of county commissioners. Having neglected all the means and
modes provided by the statutes for the correction of errors in his
assessment, he cannot correct them by an appeal to the chancery
jurisdiction of the courts, and to these plain propositions the
opinion cites abundant and well considered authorities."
The counsel for defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ of
error on the ground that "This cause and the matters and things
therein involved no questions under the Constitution or laws of the
United States of America."
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The writ of error is dismissed because the
record presents no federal question properly raised, and the
judgment of the supreme court of the state proceeded upon an
independent ground not involving a federal question, and broad
enough to maintain the judgment.