Oskamp v. Lewis
Decision Date | 31 August 1900 |
Citation | 103 F. 906 |
Parties | OSKAMP v. LEWIS, Auditor, et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Chas W. Baker and Keam & Keam, for complainant.
Rendigs Foraker & Dinsmore and Edward Barton, for respondents.
This is a bill to enjoin the collection of a tax levied upon the property of the complainant in Hamilton county, state of Ohio, upon the ground that the statutes of Ohio under which the property was listed and valued for taxation, and the tax levied, is in contravention to that clause of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States which forbids any state from depriving any person of property without due process of law. The defendants demur to the petition upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to entitle the complainant to the relief prayed for. The constitutional objections are (1) that sections 2781 and 2782 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio, under which the complainant's property was listed and valued for taxation, do not provide for notice to the taxpayer of the proceedings thereunder; (2) that the county auditor, who lists and values property for taxation under those sections acts in a judicial capacity, and, under the provisions of section 1071 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio, relating to taxation, receives as compensation for his services in so listing and valuing property 4 per cent. of the tax levied and collected thereon.
These sections read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baker v. Paxton
...and second, because the statutes of Ohio permit a tax payer to enjoin an illegal assessment. Substantially the same was held in Oskamp v. Lewis, 103 F. 906; State rel. v. Jones, Auditor, 51 Ohio St. 492, 516. In the case of McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 37, 24 L.Ed. 335, the court held that......
-
Gilsonite Construction Company v. Arkansas McAlester Coal Company
... ... Portland, 63 P. 4; Cunningham v ... Denver, 23 Colo. 18; People v. Turner, 40 N.E ... 400; Shalley v. Railroad, 64 Conn. 381; Oskamp ... v. Lewis, 103 F. 906; Quill v. Indianapolis, ... 124 Ind. 292; Villiage v. Norton, 65 N.W. 935 ... GANTT, ... J. Fox, ... ...
-
Jackson Lumber Co. v. McCrimmon
... ... interest would be excused on the ground of necessity. Cooley ... on Torts, 492; 27 Am. & Eng. Cyc. (2d Ed.) 665; Oskamp v ... Lewis, Auditor, et al. (C.C.) 103 F. 906 ... The ... objection made against the validity of the assessment because ... the ... ...
-
Milwaukee Cnty. v. Dorsen
...remote sense. Some authorities hold that they are not judicial in any sense. Henry v. Sargeant, 13 N. H. 321, 40 Am. Dec. 146;Oskamp v. Lewis (C. C.) 103 F. 906. In view of the fact that the functions of the board of review are held to be quasi judicial (State ex rel. Kimberly-Clark Company......