Opinion of the Court. rule. Not only was there ample opportunity for making this defence upon the original hearing in the Supreme Court, or upon an independent application for a writ of habeas corpus ; not only does the question involve the construction of the constitution and laws of the State with which the Supreme Court of the State is entirely familiar, but a ruling by this court that prosecutions by information in the courts of Idaho are invalid might result in the liberation of a large number of persons under sentence upon convictions obtained by this method of procedure. A step so important ought not to be taken without full opportunity given to the state court to pass upon the question, and without clear conviction of its necessity. (2) But we are also of opinion that for the purposes of this case the provision of the Idaho constitution must be deemed self-executing. The rule is thus stated by Judge Cooley in his work upon Constitutional Limitations (p. 99): "A constitutional provision may be said to be self-executing if it supplies a sufficient rule by means of which the right given may be enjoyed and protected, or the duty imposed may be enforced; and it is not self-executing when it merely indicates principles, without laying down rules by means of which those principles may be given the force of law. Thus, a constitution may very clearly require county and town government; but if it fails to indicate its range, and to provide proper machinery, it is not in this particular self-executing, and legislation is essential.” But Where a constitutional provision is complete in itself it needs no further legislation to put it in force. When it lays down certain general principles, as to enact laws upon a certain subject, or for the incorporation of cities of certain population, or for uniform laws upon the subject of taxation, it may need more specific legislation to make it operative. In other words, it is self-executing only so far as it is susceptible of execution. where a constitution asserts a certain right, or lays down a certain principle of law or procedure, it speaks for the entire people as their supreme law, and is full authority for all that is done in pursuance of its provisions. In short, if complete in itself, it executes itself. When a constitution declares that felonies may be prosecuted by information after a commitment by a magis Opinion of the Court. trate, we understand exactly what is meant, since informations for the prosecution of minor offences are said by Blackstone to be as old as the common law itself, and a proceeding before magistrates for the apprehension and commitment of persons charged with crime has been the usual method of procedure since the adoption of the constitution. It is true the legislature may see fit to prescribe in detail the method of procedure, and the law enacted by it may turn out to be defective by reason of irregularity in its passage. In such case a proceeding by information might be impeached in the state court for such irregularity, but it certainly would not be void so long as it was authorized by the Constitution. For us to say that the accused had been denied due process of law would involve the absurdity of holding that what the people had declared to be the law was not the law. (3) The question whether appellant shall be executed under the act of the legislature by the warden of the penitentiary, or under the Revised Statutes, as the law stood at the time of his trial and conviction, by the sheriff, or whether he shall escape punishment altogether, was determined adversely to him by the Supreme Court of the State, 59 Pac. Rep. 544, and involves no question of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. McNulty v. California, 149 U. S. 645. The order of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Idaho denying the writ of habeas corpus is, therefore, Affirmed. Statement of the Case. TYLER v. JUDGES OF THE COURT OF REGISTRATION. ERROR TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 213. Argued October 25, 1900.-Decided December 17, 1900. A petitioner in an application for a writ of prohibition to the judges of a Court of Land Registration upon the ground that the contemplated proceedings in said court denied to parties interested due process of law, cannot maintain a writ of error from this court to the Supreme Court of the State without showing that he is personally interested in the litigation, and has been, or is likely to be, deprived of his property without due process of law. The fact that other persons in whom he has no personal interest and who do not appear in the case, may suffer in that particular is not sufficient. THIS was a petition by Tyler o the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for a writ of prohibition to be directed to the Judges of the Court of Registration to prohibit them from further proceeding under what is known as the Torrens Act in the registration of a certain parcel of land described in the application, or in the determination of the boundary between such parcel of land and land of petitioner. The petition alleged in substance that David E. Gould and George H. Jones, on December 22, 1898, applied to the Court of Land Registration to have certain land in the county of Middlesex brought under the operation and provisions of the Land Registration Act, and to have their title thereto registered and confirmed. The land referred to was shown on a plan filed with the application. The petitioner, who was the owner of an estate in fee simple in a parcel of land adjoining part of the land described in the application insisted that the boundary line between his land and the part aforesaid was not correctly shown on the plan filed with the application, but encroached upon and included part of his land. The petition prayed for a writ of prohibition, and alleged that the Land Registration Act Opinion of the Court. under which the proceedings were taken violated the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, first, in making a decree of confirmation conclusive upon persons having an interest in the land, though they may have had no notice of the proceedings for registration, and therefore would have the effect of depriving such persons of their property without due process of law, and otherwise than by the law of the land; second, that the act was also invalid in giving judicial powers to the recorder and assistant recorders therein mentioned, who were not judicial officers under the constitution of the Commonwealth, and also in giving them power to deprive persons of their property without due process of law; third, that the operation of the act in other respects depended for the effect thereby intended upon the conclusiveness of the original decree of registration, and the exercise of nonjudicial powers by the recorder, etc. Upon the petition and answer, which simply averred compliance with the terms of the act, together with the rules of the land court, etc., the case was reserved for a full bench upon the only question raised at the hearing, namely, the constitutionality of the act. The court decided the act to be constitutional, and dismissed the petition. 175 Mass. 71. Hence this writ of error. Mr. J. L. Thorndike, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Hosea M. Knowlton, for defendants in error. MR. JUSTICE BROWN, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. The prime object of all litigation is to establish a right asserted by the plaintiff or to sustain a defence 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. Opinion of the Court. The very first general rule laid down by Chitty, Pleading, 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. 69) "in the name of the person whose legal right has been affected, and who is 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 second clause of section 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's Lessee, 5 Cranch, 344, 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 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 |