Supreme Court of the United States, 1936

Violet Trapping Co. v. Grace

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 3, 1936 · Per Curiam

297 U.S. 119; 56 S. Ct. 386; 80 L. Ed. 518; 1936 U.S. LEXIS 515 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Edward Rightor, with whom Messrs3 Eugie V. Par-ham said Edwin J. Prinz were on the brief, for appellant., Messrs. Emmet Alpha, George A. Dreyfous, and Claude L. Johnson were on the brief for appellees., By leave of Court, Messrs.. Bentley- G. Byrnes.said M. C. Scharff filed a brief on behalf of the Trappers & Fishermen’s Union of St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes, as amicus curiae, supporting the position of appellees.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Langan v. Altmayer (Ala. 1988)
Parker v. Porter (Emergency Court of Appeals 1946)
Brock v. Lamarca (La. Ct. App. 1941)
Hale v. State Bd. of Assessment and Review (Supreme Court of the United States 1937)
In re the City of New York (New York Supreme Court 1959)
Public Service Co. v. City of Lebanon (Supreme Court of the United States 1942)
Kreicker v. Naylor Pipe Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1941)
A. F. & G. Realty Corp. v. City of New York. (Supreme Court of the United States 1941)
Doyle v. City of St. Paul (Supreme Court of the United States 1940)
Rosehill Cemetery Co. v. Steele (Supreme Court of the United States 1939)
Illinois ex rel. Eitel v. Toman (Supreme Court of the United States 1939)
Trustees of Pillsbury Academy v. Minnesota (Supreme Court of the United States 1939)
New York Rapid Transit Corp. v. City of New York (Supreme Court of the United States 1938)
State Ex Rel. Seville Holding Co. v. Draughon (Fla. 1937)
Schenebeck v. McCrary (Supreme Court of the United States 1936)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant is a sub-lessee of lands leased by the State of Louisiana in 1924 to the Terre aux Boeufs Drainage District. The lands had become the property of the State by an adjudication for unpaid taxes of 1911 to 1923. The lease by the State contained a clause that the lease would, end in case the lands were redeemed by the former owner or sold by the State. At the time the lease and sub-lease *120 were made, the lands could be redeemed only by payment of all taxes, penalties and interest due at the date of redemption. By á subsequent statute, Act No. 161 of 1934, the. legislature of Louisiana permitted redemption on different and less onerous terms, that is, by the payment, on ah installment basis, of the actual taxes for which the property had been adjudicated to the State. Under that statute, certificates for the redemption of the lands in question were issued by the Register of the State Land Office. Appellant then sought mandamus to compel the cancellation of the certificates, upon the ground that the Act of 1934 violated the Constitution of the United States in that the act impaired the obligation of appellant’s contract of lease, deprived appellant of its property without due process of law, and denied to appellant the equal protection of the laws. Judgment against the appellant was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. That court decided that there was no impairment of the contract as the clause in the original lease, making it subject to redemption, was “free of ambiguity and without limitation as'to the conditions under'which the properties embraced in the lease might be redeemed or sold, or the price to be paid therefor.” State ex rel. Violet Trapping Co. v. Grace, 182 La. 405; 162 So. 26.

While this Court, when the contract clause of the Federal Constitution is invoked, may determine for itself the meaning and effect of the contract (Larson v. South Dakota, 278 U. S. 429, 433; United States Mortgage Co. v. Matthews, 293 U. S. 232, 236), we find no reason for disagreeing with the conclusion reached by the state court. The questions sought to be raised under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment áre without merit. Bachtel v. Wilson, 204 U. S. 36, 41; Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co., 240 U. S. 342, 357; Sproles v. Binford, 286 U. S. 374, 396. The judgment is

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.