Marshall v. Dye

Citations

• 231 U.S. 250
• 34 S. Ct. 92
• 58 L. Ed. 206
• 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2564

Syllabus

<p>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 IT. S. 95.</p> <p>The enforcement of the provision in Article IV, § 4 of the Constitution, that the United States shall guarantee to evei-y 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. ■</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p>