Paul Hill Saunders v. Daniel Shaw

• Decision Date: 04 June 1917
• Docket Number: No. 472,472
• Citation: Paul Hill Saunders v. Daniel Shaw, 244 U.S. 317, 37 S.Ct. 638, 61 L.Ed. 1163 (1917)
• Parties: PAUL HILL SAUNDERS, Plff. in Err., v. DANIEL SHAW and the Board of Drainage Commissioners of the Bayou Terre-AuxBoeufs Drainage District
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

244 U.S. 317

37 S.Ct. 638

61 L.Ed. 1163

PAUL HILL SAUNDERS, Plff. in Err.,

v DANIEL SHAW and the Board of Drainage Commissioners of the Bayou Terre-AuxBoeufs Drainage District.

No. 472.

Argued May 9, 1917.

Decided June 4, 1917.

Mr. William Winans Wall for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Frank L. Richardson and Frank Soule for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Holmesdelivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit for an injunction against the collection of a drainage tax.The drainage district had issued bonds payable out of the tax, and the plaintiff in error, who held some of these bonds, was allowed to intervene in defense.At the trial the plaintiff offered evidence to show that the land taxed was outside of the levee system that the drainage commissioners were building, that it would receive no benefit, and really was an island or islands in the Gulf of Mexico.The defendant objected and the evidence was excluded as inadmissible under the pleadings, but it was spread upon the record and completed in order to carry the case to the supreme court.The defendant then put in testimony that the land was not in the Gulf of Mexico, and that the maps produced could not be relied upon for the depth of the water when water was indicated, but cross-examination to show the physical condition of the property was objected to—the defendants' position being that the question was not open, and that being the ruling of the court.Judgment was entered for the defendant and intervener and was affirmed on appeal by the supreme court.A rehearing was granted, however, and the court, observing that the answer and testimony showed that the land was low and marshy, had not been benefited or drained and could not be drained under the present system, held that the case was governed by Myles Salt Co. v. Iberia & St. M. Drainage Dist.239 U. S. 478, 60 L. ed. 392, L.R.A. ——, ——, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 204, decided after the first decision in the present case; reversed the judgment and granted an injunction against the assessment upon this land.

The intervening defendant thereupon applied for a rehearing, but the court declined to consider the application under its rule that only one rehearing should be granted.He now brings this writ of error and says that he has been deprived of due process of law, contrary to the 14th Amendment, because the case has been decided against him without his ever having had the proper opportunity to present his evidence.Technically this is true, for when the trial court ruled that it was not...