U.S. Supreme Court COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS v. STATE OF MISSOURI, 308 U.S. 1 (1939)

[Page 308 U.S. 1, 20]

the federal courts; not to those cases in which an original suit might not be instituted in a federal court'. Cohens v. Virginia, supra, 6 Wheat. 264, at pages 398, 399. With respect to the character of the claim now urged, we are not advised that Missouri would close its courts to a civil action brought by Massachusetts to recover the tax alleged to be due from the trustees. The Attorney General of Missouri at this bar asserts the contrary. He says that 'it would seem that Massachusetts should be able to bring a suit against the trustees for the collection of its taxes, in either a Missouri state court or in a federal district court in Missouri' and that 'such a suit would be of a civil nature and would present a justiciable case or controversy'. We have said that the objection that the courts in one State will not entertain a suit to recover taxes due to another or upon a judgment for such taxes, is not rightly addressed to any want of judicial power in courts which are authorized to entertain civil suits at law. It goes 'not to the jurisdiction but to the merits', and raises a question which district courts are competent to decide. Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 272, 56 S.Ct. 229, 231.

The motion for leave to file the proposed bill of complaint is denied. It is so ordered.

Motion denied.

Mr. Justice BUTLER took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.