The plaintiff in error was County Clerk of Oklahoma County,
Oklahoma Territory. The territorial board of equalization increased
the valuation of property in the county, assessed for taxation,
twenty-four percent, and officially notified him of their action.
He refused to act upon the notice, and a writ of mandamus was
issued from the supreme court of the territory to compel him to do
so. He declined to obey the writ, was cited for contempt, was
adjudged guilty, and was committed to prison until he should
comply. There was no evidence, and nothing tending to show that he
had any pecuniary interest in the increase. The case being brought
here by writ of error and on appeal.
Held, that as there was nothing to show that the
plaintiff in error and appellant was interested in the increase to
the extent of five thousand dollars, therefore, under the statute
of March 3, 1885, c. 335, 23 Stat. 443, this Court had no
jurisdiction.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action of mandamus brought by the Territory of
Oklahoma on the relation of Harper S. Cunningham, attorney general
of the territory, against Richard F. Caffrey, County Clerk of
Oklahoma County.
The territorial board of equalization, composed of the
governor,
Page 177 U. S. 347
the territorial secretary, and the auditor, increased the
assessed valuation of the property of Oklahoma County twenty-four
percent, and notified the plaintiff in error and appellant thereof,
as county clerk.
He refused to comply with the order, and this action was brought
in the supreme court of the territory to compel compliance
therewith.
An alternative writ of mandamus was issued, to which he made
return and answer. In his return and answer, he admitted that he
had been duly notified of the order of the board of equalization
and had failed to comply with it, and alleged that it was illegal
and void because, first, the board had no jurisdiction or legal
authority to make it; second, that it was not made for the purpose
of equalizing the valuation of property, but for other and illegal
purposes; that it was made arbitrarily, and without evidence other
than the assessment roll; that the valuation of the property of
Oklahoma County, as shown by the assessment roll, was fair and as
high as the property of Pottawatomie County, which the board took
as the basis of equalization; that a large part of the property
whose valuation was increased consisted of money.
He also alleged that he was prevented from complying by an order
of the board of county commissioners.
He prayed
"that he be granted a hearing in behalf of the taxpayers of his
county in order that he may establish by competent proof the
allegations of fact hereinbefore set out, and that, upon a final
hearing, he have judgment against the relator for his costs in this
behalf laid out and expended."
A motion was made by relator to quash the answer and return,
which was granted, and on the 21st of September, 1898, judgment was
entered granting a peremptory writ of mandamus against the
plaintiff in error and appellant.
Declining to obey the writ, he was cited for contempt, and such
proceedings were had on the citation that he was adjudged guilty,
and committed to jail until he should comply with the writ, and the
case was then brought here.
A motion is made to dismiss for want of jurisdiction in this
Court, which we think should be granted.
Page 177 U. S. 348
It is provided by the Act of March 3, 1885, that no appeal or
writ of error shall hereafter be allowed from any judgment or
decree in the supreme court of any of the territories of the United
States unless the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall
exceed the sum of $5,000, or unless the validity of a patent or a
copyright is involved, or a treaty or statute of, or an authority
exercised under, the United States, is drawn in question. 23 Stat.
443.
There is controversy between the parties, respectively supported
by affidavits, whether the effect of the order of the territorial
board of equalization is to increase the taxes of the county
$3,179.27 or $28,751.87. But whether it is one sum or the other,
the plaintiff in error and appellant does not show that he has any
interest in it. He does not allege that he is a property owner or a
taxpayer of the county. He alleges he is its county clerk, and
bases his resistance to the order of the territorial board of
equalization upon his duty as such officer.
However this may have justified his action, of which we express
no opinion, or may have caused a dispute which the territorial
court had jurisdiction to pass on and determine, it does not give
us jurisdiction. To justify our taking jurisdiction, there must be
a controversy which involves pecuniary value exceeding $5,000 to
the party appealing. In other words, there must be a dispute which
involves a sum in excess of $5,000, and such sum, or property of
its value, must be taken from him by the judgment which he seeks to
review.
Colvin v. Jacksonville, 158 U.
S. 456, is in point. It was a suit in equity to restrain
the issue of bonds by the City of Jacksonville, and was brought in
the circuit court of the United States for the Northern District of
Florida. Colvin alleged that he was a taxpayer, and that the amount
of taxes that would be assessed upon the property owned by him in
the city would exceed $2,000. This was denied, and the complainant
then contended that not the amount of his taxes, but the amount of
the bonds proposed to be issued ($1,000,000), was the amount in
controversy. The circuit court dismissed the case for want of
jurisdiction, and this Court sustained the ruling, saying by the
Chief Justice that
"the amount of the interest of
Page 177 U. S. 349
complainant, and not the entire issue of bonds, was amount in
controversy, and, in respect of that, we have no doubt the ruling
of the circuit court was correct."
"
El Paso Water Co. v. El Paso, 152 U. S.
157, was cited and approved."
In the pending action, the plaintiff in error and appellant has
neither gained nor lost any money or money's worth by the judgment
of the supreme court of the territory.
The writ of error and appeal are
Dismissed.