Strauss v. State

• Decision Date: 04 April 1917
• Docket Number: 1915
• Citation: Strauss v. State, 36 N.D. 594, 162 N.W. 908 (N.D. 1917)
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

162 N.W. 908

36 N.D. 594

FRED BISMARCK STRAUSS v. STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA and the County of Burleigh

No. 1915

Supreme Court of North Dakota

April 4, 1917

Rehearing denied May 11, 1917.

Action to recover an inheritance tax paid under protest.

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, W. L. Nuessle, J.

Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

F. E McCurdy, for appellant.

There must be some difference which bears a reasonable and proper relation to the attempted classification, in such cases as the one at bar. The law cannot make a mere arbitrary selection. If the law attempts to do so, it is in violation of the Constitution. Kentucky R. Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321 337, 29 L.Ed. 414, 419, 6 S.Ct. 57; Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 30 L.Ed. 220, 6 S.Ct. 1064; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150, 41 L.Ed. 666, 17 S.Ct. 255; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav Bank, 170 U.S. 283, 294, 42 L.Ed. 1037, 1043, 18 S.Ct. 594; Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. (Cotting v. Godard) 183 U.S. 79, 111, 46 L.Ed. 92, 109, 22 S.Ct. 30; Michigan C. R. Co. v. Powers, 201 U.S. 245, 293, 30 L.Ed. 744, 761, 26 S.Ct. 459; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U.S. 540, 45 L.Ed. 679, 22 S.Ct. 431; Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U.S. 232, 33 L.Ed. 892, 10 S.Ct. 533; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509, 521, 43 L.Ed. 786, 793, 19 S.Ct. 522; Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U.S. 68, 30 L.Ed. 578, 7 S.Ct. 350; Re Pell, 171 N.Y. 48, 57 L.R.A. 540, 89 Am. St. Rep. 791, 63 N.E. 789; People v. Orange County Road Constr. Co. 175 N.Y. 84, 65 L.R.A. 33, 67 N.E. 129; Cooley, Taxn. 3d ed. 77; State ex rel. White House School Dist. v. Readington Twp. 36 N.J.L. 66; People ex rel. Farrington v. Mensching, 187 N.Y. 8, 10 L.R.A.(N.S.) 625, 79 N.E. 884, 10 Ann. Cas. 101.

This law is an unjust and arbitrary discrimination in favor of one as against another of the same class, and is a violation of primary rights. Where no valid reason can be given for selecting one, or a class of persons, and taxing them more heavily than others in the same situation, the law is void. People ex rel. Williams Engineering & Contracting Co. v. Metz, 193 N.Y. 160, 24 L.R.A.(N.S.) 208, 85 N.E. 1070; Re New York, 190 N.Y. 350, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 340, 85 N.E. 299, 13 Ann. Cas. 598; Bush v. New York L. Ins. Co. 63 Misc. 91, 116 N.Y.S. 1056; Lee v. O'Malley, 69 Misc. 218, 126 N.Y.S. 778; Re McKennan, 27 S.D. 147, 33 L.R.A.(N.S.) 620, 130 N.W. 33, 25 S.D. 369, 33 L.R.A.(N.S.) 606, 126 N.W. 611; People ex rel. Duryea v. Wilber, 198 N.Y. 1, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 357, 90 N.E. 1140, 19 Ann. Cas. 626.

It is necessary to make such excises uniform as to the entire class of collateral. The law must not tax one and exempt another in the same class. State v. Hamlin, 41 Am. St. Rep. 580, note; Dixon v. Ricketts, 26 Utah 215, 72 P. 947; Re Wilmerding, 117 Cal. 284, 49 P. 181; State ex rel. Fath v. Henderson, 160 Mo. 216, 60 S.W. 1093; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U.S. 283, 42 L.Ed. 1037, 18 S.Ct. 594; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 44 L.Ed. 969, 20 S.Ct. 747; State ex rel. Schwartz v. Ferris, 30 L.R.A. 218, note; Drew v. Tift, 79 Minn. 175, 47 L.R.A. 525, 79 Am. St. Rep. 446, 81 N.W. 839; Lodi Twp. v. State, 51 N.J.L. 402, 6 L.R.A. 56, 18 A. 749; State, Alexander, Prosecutor, v. Elizabeth, 56 N.J.L. 80, 23 L.R.A. 529, 28 A. 51; Weaver v. Davidson County, 104 Tenn. 329, 59 S.W. 1105; Darcy v. San Jose, 104 Cal. 647, 38 P. 500; Wagner v. Milwaukee County, 112 Wis. 608, 88 N.W. 577; Longview v. Crawfordsville, 164 Ind. 122, 68 L.R.A. 625, 73 N.E. 78, 3 Ann. Cas. 496; Kraus v. Lehman, 170 Ind. 420, 83 N.E. 714, 84 N.E. 769, 15 Ann. Cas. 849; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Westby, 47 L. R.A.(N.S.) 97, 102 C. C. A. 65, 178 F. 619; Edmonds v. Herbrandson, 2 N.D. 274, 14 L.R.A. 725, 50 N.W. 970; Plummer v. Borsheim, 8 N.D. 568, 80 N.W. 690; Angell v. Cass County, 11 N.D. 265, 91 N.W. 72; State ex rel. Mitchell v. Mayo, 15 N.D. 327, 108 N.W. 36.

This law is totally void under the ruling of the United States Supreme Court. Fayette County v. People's & D. Bank, 47 Ohio St. 503, 10 L.R.A. 196, 25 N.E. 697; Allen v. Louisiana, 103 U.S. 80, 26 L.Ed. 318; Income Tax Cases (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co.) 158 U.S. 635, 39 L.Ed. 1125, 15 S.Ct. 912; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Westby, 47 L.R.A.(N.S.) 97, 102 C. C. A. 65, 178 F. 619; Paxton & H. Irrigating Canal & Land Co. v. Farmers & M. Irrig. & Land Co. 45 Neb. 884, 29 L.R.A. 853, 50 Am. St. Rep. 585, 64 N.W. 343.

William Langer, Attorney General, and H. A. Bronson and Dan V. Brennan, Assistant Attorneys General, and Geo. E. Wallace and H. R. Berndt, for respondents.

The petitioner here should have sought his remedy by appeal, instead of mandamus. If the lower court was wrong, it was but judicial error, the subject of appeal and review in the usual manner. 13 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 539; People v. Sexton, 24 Cal. 79; Francisco v. Manhattan Ins. Co. 36 Cal. 283; Davis v. Wallace, 4 Cal. Unrep. 949, 38 P. 1107; State ex rel. Child v. Smith, 19 Wis. 531; Ex parte Des Moines & M. R. Co. 103 U.S. 794, 26 L.Ed. 461; Ex parte Hurn, 13 L.R.A. 120 and note, 92 Ala. 102, 25 Am. St. Rep. 23, 9 So. 515; Territory ex rel. County Comrs. v. Cavanaugh, 3 Dak. 325, 19 N.W. 413.

If the court has authority to test questions of law or fact, mandamus will not issue to state what the decision will be. Benedict v. Howell, 39 N.J.L. 221; Re Rice, 155 U.S. 396, 39 L.Ed. 198, 15 S.Ct. 149; Re Parsons, 150 U.S. 150, 37 L.Ed. 1034, 14 S.Ct. 50; State ex rel. Northern P. R. Co. v. District Judge, 3 N.D. 43, 53 N.W. 433; Re Morrison, 147 U.S. 14, 37 L.Ed. 60, 13 S.Ct. 246; Ex parte Baltimore & O. R. Co. 108 U.S. 566, 27 L.Ed. 812, 2 S.Ct. 876; Shine v. Kentucky C. R. Co. 85 Ky. 177, 3 S.W. 18; Ex parte Des Moines & M. R. Co. 103 U.S. 794, 26 L.Ed. 461; Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 152, 20 L.Ed. 877.

Mandamus only directs what some other officer or court shall do. Roberts v. Holsworth, 10 N.J.L. 57; Rev. Codes 1905, § 7971; Comp. Laws 1913, § 8606; Ex parte Elston, 25 Ala. 72; Ex parte Hutt, 14 Ark. 368; People ex rel. Flagley v. Hubbard, 22 Cal. 34; Marshall v. State, 1 Ind. 72; State ex rel. Menge v. Rightor, 36 La.Ann. 200; State ex rel. Patterson v. Marshall, 82 Mo. 484; State ex rel. Combination Silver Min. Co. v. Curler, 4 Nev. 445; Shelby v. Hoffman, 7 Ohio St. 450.

Had the petitioner produced proof of the payment of the inheritance tax, and the county court had refused to allow the account and grant the petition for distribution, mandamus would doubtless lie. People ex rel. Green v. Dutchess & C. R. Co. 58 N.Y. 153; Johnson v. Lucas, 11 Humph. 306; State ex rel. Walker v. Orphans Ct. Judge, 15 Ala. 740; Rosenthal v. State Canvassers, 50 Kan. 129, 19 L.R.A. 157, 32 P. 129; Clark v. Buchanan, 2 Minn. 346, Gil. 298; Ross v. Lane, 11 Miss. 695; Gillespie v. Wood, 4 Humph. 437; Hall v. Steele, 82 Ala. 562, 2 So. 650; Cook v. Candee, 52 Ala. 109.

And it also clearly appears that the respondent would have no authority in law to do the acts which appellant would have performed. Cooley, Taxn. 3d ed. 1350, and note 2; 14 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 100; People v. San Francisco, 20 Cal. 592; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. District Ct. 13 N.D. 211, 100 N.W. 248; State ex rel. Lytle v. Douglas County, 18 Neb. 506, 26 N.W. 315; Thoreson v. State Examiners, 19 Utah 18, 57 P. 178.

The statute here involved is not repugnant to the Federal Constitution, prohibiting any state from denying to any citizen equal protection of the laws. Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U.S. 283, 42 L.Ed. 1037, 18 S.Ct. 594; Billings v. Illinois, 188 U.S. 97, 47 L.Ed. 400, 23 S.Ct. 272; Campbell v. California, 200 U.S. 87, 50 L.Ed. 382, 26 S.Ct. 182; Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557, 43 L.Ed. 552, 19 S.Ct. 281; Cahen v. Brewster, 203 U.S. 543, 51 L.Ed. 310, 27 S.Ct. 174, 8 Ann. Cas. 215; Re Speed, 216 Ill. 23, 108 Am. St. Rep. 189, 74 N.E. 809; Board of Education v. Illinois, 203 U.S. 553, 51 L.Ed. 314, 27 S.Ct. 171, 8 Ann. Cas. 157; Beers v. Glynn, 211 U.S. 477, 53 L.Ed. 290, 29 S.Ct. 186, 186 N.Y. 549, 79 N.E. 1110; Humphreys v. State, 70 Ohio St. 67, 65 L.R.A. 776, 101 Am. St. Rep. 888, 70 N.E. 957, 1 Ann. Cas. 233.

Neither is it in violation of the Federal Constitution forbidding any state to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Trippet v. State, 149 Cal. 521, 8 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1210, 86 P. 1084; State v. Hamlin, 86 Me. 495, 25 L.R.A. 632, 41 Am. St. Rep. 569, 30 A. 76; Union Trust Co. v. Wayne Probate Judge, 125 Mich. 487, 84 N.W. 1101; Gelsthorpe v. Furnell, 20 Mont. 299, 39 L.R.A. 170, 51 P. 267.

Neither of the provisions of the Federal Constitution which provides that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States applies. Booth v. Com. (Rodman v. Com.) 130 Ky. 88, 33 L.R.A.(N.S.) 592, 113 S.W. 61; State ex rel. Slabaugh v. Vinsonhaler, 74 Neb. 675, 105 N.W. 472; State v. Clark, 30 Wash. 439, 71 P. 20; United States v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287, 16 S.Ct. 1073; Re Campbell, 143 Cal. 623, 77 P. 674; Re Wilmerding, 117 Cal. 281, 49 P. 181.

The requirements of uniformity are not violated if a statutory provision by a board of review in counties of a certain population differs from other counties in the state. People ex rel. Green v. Cook County, 176 Ill. 576, 52 N.E. 334.

Such distinctions are numerous and apply to different subjects. Hughes v. Cairo, 92 Ill. 339; Home Ins. Co. v Swigert, 104 Ill. 653; Union Cent. L. Ins. Co. v. Durfee, 164 Ill. 186, 45 N.E. 441; Braun v. Chicago, 110 Ill. 186; Timm v. Harrison, 109 Ill. 593; People ex rel. Deneen v. Thornton, 186 Ill. 162, 57 N.E. 841; People ex rel. Crowell v. Lawrence, 36 Barb. 177; Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 553, 19...