Lee v. Osceola Little River Orad Improvement Dist No of Mississippi County, Ark, 336
| Decision Date | 08 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 336,336 |
| Parties | LEE et al. v. OSCEOLA & LITTLE RIVER ORAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. I OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, ARK |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Prewitt Semmes and Charles M. Bryan, both of Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. J. T. Coston, Osceola, Ark., for defendant in error.
The Osceola & Little River Road Improvement District brought this suit in a Chancery Court of Arkansas against Lee and the other plaintiffs in error to collect an assessment of taxes that had been made against them for the benefit accruing to their lands by the improvements. The Chancellor found the issues in favor of the District, and decreed that the statutory lien for the assessments be foreclosed and the lands sold to pay the same. This decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court. 162 Ark. 4, 257 S. W. 370. The case is properly here on writ of error; and a pending petition for certiorari is accordingly denied.
The sole question presented is whether the Arkansas statute under which the taxes in question were assessed, as construed and applied in this case, deprives the land owners of their property without due process of law in violation of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
When the District was originally organized, the lands involved in this suit, which are known as 'lake lands, or sunk lands' were included in it. The benefits accruing from the improvements were then assessed against all the land owners, including various persons who were supposed to be the riparian owners of the lake lands. It was subsequently ascertained, before the completion of the improvements, that the United States was the owner of these lake lands. It was recognized, however, that it was not liable to assessment, and no attempt was made to collect from it any part of the assessed benefits. After the improvements had been completed, the United States conveyed these lake lands, under the Homestead Act (12 Stat. 392), to the present owners. Thereafter, the Board of Commissioners of the District caused a reassessment to be made of the benefits accruing to all the lands within the District, including the lake lands which had formerly belonged to the United States. This reassessment was made under a section of the Arkansas statute which provided that: 'The board of commissioners may not oftener than once a year order a reassessment of the benefits, which shall be made, advertised, revised and confirmed as in the case of the original assessment and with like effect.' Crawford & Moses' Digest of Arkansas Statutes, § 5430. It is the reassessment of benefits thus made which the District by this suit has sought to collect.
It was settled many years ago that the property of the United States is exempt by the Constitution from taxation under the authority of a State so long as title remains in the United States. Van Brocklin v. State of Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151, 180, 6 S. Ct. 670, 29 L. Ed. 845. This is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaybird Mining Co v. Weir
...by the United States as in Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151, 6 S. Ct. 670, 29 L. Ed. 845; or Lee v. Osceola, etc., Improvement District, 268 U. S. 643, 45 S. Ct. 620, 69 L. Ed. 1133; nor with an agency all of whose property was acquired and is used solely for the purpose of serving ......
-
Peninsula Drainage Dist. No. 2 v. City of Portland
...cases. See, Mullen Benevolent Corp. v. United States, 290 U.S. 89, 54 S.Ct. 38, 78 L.Ed. 192; Lee v. Osceola & Little River Road Improvement Dist., 268 U.S. 643, 45 S.Ct. 620, 69 L.Ed. 1133; Varney River Drainage District v. Spiedel, 347 Mo. 1124, 152 S.W.2d 54; Ford v. City of Great Falls,......
-
Dekalb Cnty. v. United States
...including counties. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819); see also Lee v. Osceola & Little River Rd. Improvement Dist. No. 1 of Mississippi Cnty., Mo., 268 U.S. 643, 620 (1925) ("It was settled many years ago that the property of the United States is exempt by the Constituti......
-
United States v. Allegheny County, Pa
...of state taxing power. See also Irwin v. Wright, 258 U.S. 219, 42 S.Ct. 293, 66 L.Ed. 573; Lee v. Osceola & Little River Road Improvement District, 268 U.S. 643, 45 S.Ct. 620, 69 L.Ed. 1133. A state may tax personal property and might well tax it to one in whose possession it was found, but......