Farson, Son & Co. v. Bird

Background

In 1905 and 1907 the County contracted to build and furnish a courthouse and agreed to pay by interest-bearing warrants. State law and the contract promised a special annual tax of one-fourth of one percent to pay those warrants. The county’s governing board later directed that tax money to other uses, and the county treasurer refused to pay warrant holders, though he held tax proceeds from 1915 and demand had been made.

Reasoning

Warrant holders sued the county treasurer for mandamus, saying the diversion impaired the contract and violated the federal Constitution’s contract clause. The state courts held that mandamus against the treasurer was not the proper procedural route because state law limited that officer’s duties and that relief, if any, should be sought against different officers or the county itself. The Supreme Court reviewed only whether a federal question existed and concluded the state court’s ruling rested on state-law procedural grounds, not a federal contract-clause decision, so no federal basis supported the writ.

Real world impact

The decision leaves the dispute to Alabama procedures. Warrant holders must pursue remedies under state law against the county or its governing board rather than forcing payment directly from the treasurer by mandamus in that action. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error for want of jurisdiction, so federal intervention did not occur.

Dissents or concurrances

The opinion notes a related state-court case where mandamus against the board of revenue was granted and the diversion was held void under state and federal contract protections, which clarifies where relief may be obtained.