A bill to enjoin state officials from bringing an action in the
state courts for the purpose of forfeiting and escheating the
plaintiff's land under the law of the state that the plaintiff
attacks as repugnant to the Federal Constitution will not lie in
federal court, since full protection of the plaintiff's rights can
be had in the action by the state, if instituted.
35 F.2d 199 affirmed.
Appeal from a decree of the District Court of three judges
dismissing a bill for an injunction.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a bill in equity to enjoin the appellees from bringing
or causing to be brought a suit for enforcing against the appellant
Section 33, Article II, of the Constitution of the Washington and
an Act of 1921 in pursuance of the same, it being alleged that the
section and Act are repugnant to the commerce and contract
Page 283 U. S. 569
clauses of the Constitution of the United States and also to the
Fourteenth Amendment and to the Treaty between the United States
and Great Britain (8 Stat. 228). The bill was dismissed by a
district court of three Judges. 35 F.2d 199.
The bill alleges that the plaintiff, the appellant, is a
corporation of the State of Washington, and that it owns rights of
way, etc., over which it transmits electrical energy from Canada to
points within the state. But the majority of its stock is owned by
an alien corporation and, with immaterial exceptions, ยง 33, Art. II
of the constitution of the state prohibits the ownership of land by
aliens and provides that every corporation of which the majority of
the stock is owned by aliens shall be considered an alien for the
purposes of the prohibition. This was in force before the appellant
acquired its alleged rights. The statute was passed after the
acquisition.
State v. Natsuhara, 136 Wash. 437, 444, 240
P. 557. It is alleged that the defendants have threatened and will
attempt to forfeit and escheat to the state the plaintiff's rights
by prosecuting a suit at law in the courts of the state, as a
result of which the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss.
Some at least, of the constitutional objections to the laws of
the state are disposed of by
Terrace v. Thompson,
263 U. S. 197,
but, before they are reached, there arises the objection that no
ground for equitable interference by the Courts of the United
States is shown by the bill. The only injury alleged is the result
of the suit in the state courts. So far as appears, that result
will ensue only upon a decision against the appellant. It is an odd
ground for an injunction against a suit that the suit may turn out
against the party sued. If the action is based upon an
unconstitutional law, and if the trial court upholds it, still the
appellant can protect its rights as fully in the state courts as
elsewhere. As it is put by Mr.
Page 283 U. S. 570
Justice Moody, speaking for a unanimous Court,
"It is safe to say that no case can be found where this Court
has deliberately approved the issuance of an injunction against the
enforcement of an ordinance resting on state authority merely
because it was illegal or unconstitutional, unless further
circumstances were shown which brought the case within some clear
ground of equity jurisdiction."
Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boise City,
213 U. S. 276,
213 U. S. 285.
Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U. S. 453,
248 U. S. 456.
These cases relied on by the Court below are sufficient to sustain
its conclusion. The exceptions are explained in the cases in which
they occur,
e.g., Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.
S. 197,
263 U. S.
21-216.
Decree affirmed.