US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

MARSHALL V. DYE, 231 U. S. 250 (1913)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 231 U. S. 250

U.S. Supreme Court

Marshall v. Dye, 231 U.S. 250 (1913)

Marshall v. Dye

No. 401

Argued October 23, 1913

Decided December 1, 1913

231 U.S. 250

Syllabus

Where a board of public officials is a continuing body, notwithstanding its change of personnel, as is the case with the State Board of Elections of Indiana, the suit will be continued against the successors in office of those who ceased to be members of the board. Murphy v. Utter, 186 U. S. 95.

The enforcement of the provision in Article IV, § 4 of the Constitution that the United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government depends upon political and governmental action through the powers conferred on the Congress, and not those conferred on the courts. Pacific Telephone Co. v. Oregon, 223 U. S. 118.

The claim that a judgment of the state court enjoining state officers from acting under a state statute declared to be unconstitutional denies to the state a republican form of government on account of the interference of the judicial department with the legislative and executive departments does not present a justiciable controversy concerning which the decision is reviewable by this Court.

The right of this Court to review judgments of the state courts is circumscribed within the limits of § 709, Rev.Stat., now § 237, Judicial Code. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86.

Only those having a personal, as distinguished from an official, interest can bring to this Court for review the judgment of a state court on the ground that a federal right has been denied. Smith v. Indiana, 191 U. S. 138.

Whether the State Board of Elections shall submit a new state constitution to the electors of a state in accordance with a state statute concerns the members of the board in their official capacity only, and a judgment of the state court that they refrain from so doing concerns their official, and not their personal, rights, and this Court will not review such judgment.

Writ of error to review 99 N.E. 1 dismissed.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this Court to review a judgment of the state court at the instance of chanrobles.com-red

Page 231 U. S. 251

a public official who has no personal interest in the litigation, are stated in the opinion. chanrobles.com-red

Page 231 U. S. 254



























chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com