Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration/Opinion of the Court
The prime object of all litigation is to establish a right asserted by the plaintiff or to sustain a defense set up by the party pursued. Save in a few instances where, by statute or the settled practice of the courts, the plaintiff is permitted to sue for the benefit of another, he is bound to show an interest in the suit personal to himself, and even in a proceeding which he prosecutes for the benefit of the public, as, for example, in cases of nuisance, he must generally aver an injury peculiar to himself, as distinguished from the great body of his fellow citizens.

The very first general rule laid down by Chitty, Pl. p. 1, is that 'the action should be brought in the name of the party whose legal right has been affected, against the party who committed or caused the injury, or by or against his personal representative.' An action on contract (p. 2) 'must be brought in the name of the party in whom the legal interest in such contract was vested;' and an action of tort (p. 68) 'in the name of the person whose legal right has been affected, and who was legally interested in the property at the time the injury thereto was committed.' As stated by another writer: 'No one can be a party to an action if he has no interest in it. A plaintiff cannot properly sue for wrongs that do not affect him, and, on the other hand, a person is not properly made a defendant to a suit upon a cause of action in which he has no interest, and as to which no relief is sought against him.' In familiar illustration of this rule, the plaintiff in an action of ejectment must recover upon the strength of his own title, and not upon the weakness of the defendant's who may even show title in a third person to defeat the action.

Actions instituted in this court by writ of error to a state court are no exceptions to this rule. In order that the validity of a state statute may be 'drawn in question' under the 2d clause of § 709, Rev. Stat., it must appear that the plaintiff in error has a right to draw it in question by reason of an interest in the litigation which has suffered, or may suffer, by the decision of the state court in favor of the validity of the statute. This principle has been announced in so many cases in this court that it may not be considered an open question.

In Owings v. Norwood, 5 Cranch, 344, 3 L. ed. 120, an action of ejectment, defendant set up an outstanding title in one Scarth, a British subject, who held a mortgage upon the premises. The decision of the court being adverse to Owings, he sued out a writ of error from this court, contending that Scarth's title was protected by the treaty with Great Britain. It was held that, as the defendant claimed no right under the treaty himself, and that the right of Scarth, if he had any, was not affected by the decision of the case, the court had no jurisdiction. 'If,' the court said, 'he [the defendant] claims nothing under a treaty, his title cannot be protected by the treaty. If Scarth or his heirs had claimed it would have been a case arising under a treaty. But neither the title of Scarth nor of any person claiming under him can be affected by the decision of this court.'

In Henderson v. Tennessee, 10 How. 311, 13 L. ed. 434, a similar case, namely, an action of ejectment, an outstanding title in a third person, was set up by the defendant, and alleged to have been derived under a treaty. The court held that an outstanding title in a third person might be set up, and that the title set up in this case was claimed under a treaty, 'but,' said the court, 'to give jurisdiction to this court, the party must claim the right for himself, and not for a third person in whose title he has no interest. . . . The heirs of Miller,' who claimed under the treaty, 'appear to have no interest in this suit, nor can their rights be affected by the decision.' Like rulings were made under a similar state of facts in Montgomery v. Hernandez, 12 Wheat. 129, 6 L. ed. 575; Hale v. Gaines, 22 How. 144, 16 L. ed. 264; Verden v. Coleman, 1 Black, 472, 17 L. ed. 161, and Long v. Converse, 91 U.S. 105, 23 L. ed. 233.

In Giles v. Little, 134 U.S. 645, 33 L. ed. 1062, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 623, the prior authorities are cited, and the law treated as well settled that 'in order to give this court jurisdiction to review a judgment of a state court against a title or right set up or claimed under a statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, that title or right must be one of the plaintiff in error, and not of a third person only.' See also Ludeling v. Chaffe, 143 U.S. 301, 36 L. ed. 313, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 439.

It is true that under the 3d clause of § 709, where a title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under Federal law, such title, etc., must be 'specially set up or claimed,' and that no such provision is made as to cases within the 2d clause, involving the constitutionality of state statutes or authorities, but it is none the less true that the authority of such statute must 'be drawn in question' by someone who has been affected by the decision of a state court in favor of its validity, and that in this particular the three clauses of the section are practically identical.

As we had occasion to observe in California v. San Pablo & T. R. Co. 149 U.S. 308, 314, 37 L. ed. 747, 749, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 876, 'the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it. When, in determining such rights, it becomes necessary to give an opinion upon a question of law, that opinion may have weight as a precedent for future decisions. But the court is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare, for the government of future cases, principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it. No stipulation of parties, or counsel, whether in the case before the court, or in any other case, can enlarge the power or affect the duty of the court in this regard.' See also Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251, 12 L. ed. 1067; Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419, 17 L. ed. 93; Kimball v. Kimball, 174 U.S. 158, 43 L. ed. 932, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 639.

In the case under consideration the plaintiff in error is the owner of a lot adjoining the one which is sought to be registered, and the only question in dispute between them relates to the location of the boundary line. In his petition he does not set forth that he made himself a party to the proceedings before the court of registration, and his name does not even appear in the list of those who are required to be notified, or elsewhere in the proceedings before the court.

In the assignment of error he complains only of the unconstitutionality of the statute, in that it deprives persons of property without due process of law. In his brief his first objection to the validity of the act is that the registration, which deprives all persons, except the registered owner of interest in the land, is obtained as against residents and known persons only by posting notices in a conspicuous place on the land and by registered letters, and as against nonresidents and unknown persons by publication in a newspaper; and that the rights of the parties may be foreclosed without actual notice to them in either case, and without actual knowledge of the proceedings. His second objection to the validity of the act is that the registration of dealings with the land after the original registration would, in certain cases, have the effect of depriving the registered owners of their property without due process of law.

His objections throughout assume that he has actual knowledge of the proceedings, and may make himself a party to them and litigate the only question, namely, of boundaries, before the court of registration. In other words, he is not affected by the provisions of the act of which he complains, since he has the requisite notice. Other persons, whether residents or nonresidents, whose rights might be injuriously affected by the decision, might lawfully complain of the unconstitutionality of an act which would deprive them of their property without notice; but it is difficult to see how the petitioner would be affected by it. Indeed, if the act were subsequently declared to be unconstitutional, the proceedings against him would simply go for naught. He would have lost nothing, since the action of the court would simply be void, and his interest in the land would remain unaffected by its action.

It is true that his competency to institute these proceedings does not seem to have been questioned by the supreme court of Massachusetts. It may well have been thought that to avoid the necessity and expense of appearing before an unconstitutional court and defending his rights there, he had sufficient interest to attack the law, which lay at the foundation of its proposed action; but to give him a status in this court he is bound under his petition to show, either that he has been, or is likely to be, deprived of his property without due process of law, in violation of the 14th Amendment; and as no such showing has been made, we cannot assume to decide the general question whether the commonwealth has established a court whose jurisdiction may, as to some other person, amount to a deprivation of property. If that court shall eventually uphold his contention with respect to the boundary, he will have no ground for complaint. If he be unsuccessful, he may, under the registration act, appeal to the superior and ultimately to the supreme court, whence, if it be made to appear that a right has been denied him under the 14th Amendment, he may have his writ of error from this court.

Our conclusion is that the plaintiff in error has not the requisite interest to draw in question the constitutionality of this act, and that the writ of error must be dismissed. [411]

Notes