Ex Parte Bransford,
310 U.S. 354 (1940)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Ex Parte Bransford, 310 U.S. 354 (1940)

Ex Parte Bransford

No. ___, Original

Argued April 23, 1940

Decided May 20, 1940

310 U.S. 354


1. Mandamus is proper to review error of a district court in refusing to call in additional judges, under Jud.Code § 266, in a suit praying an interlocutory injunction against state officers. P. 310 U. S. 355.

2. The application for mandamus may be made by one of several defendants. P. 310 U. S. 356.

3. A suit by a national bank to enjoin the collection of a state tax is not a suit to restrain the enforcement of a statute of the State "upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute," within the meaning of Jud.Code § 266, where the bill makes no attack upon the state legislation involved, but alleges that state officials have misconstrued it and have made an assessment which is unconstitutional because excessive and discriminatory and which is also invalid because it discriminates against national bank shares in violation of R.S. § 5219, and includes preferred shares of the bank owned by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which are exempt under the Act of Congress of March 20, 1936. P. 310 U. S. 357.

A petition for an injunction on the ground of the unconstitutionality of a statute as applied, which requires a three-judge court,

Page 310 U. S. 355

is to be distinguished from one based on the alleged unconstitutionality of the result obtained by the use of a statute which is not attacked as unconstitutional. The latter does not require a three-judge court, its attack being aimed at allegedly erroneous administrative action.

Motion denied.

On a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus and on the respondent's return to a rule to show cause.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.