Turner v. Wade, No. 29

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtDAY
Citation254 U.S. 64,65 L.Ed. 134,41 S.Ct. 27
Docket NumberNo. 29
Decision Date14 November 1919
PartiesTURNER et al. v. WADE, Sheriff of Brooks County, Ga

254 U.S. 64
41 S.Ct. 27
65 L.Ed. 134
TURNER et al.

v.

WADE, Sheriff of Brooks County, Ga.

No. 29.
Argued Nov. 14, 1919.

Restored to Docket for Reargument Jan. 5, 1920.

Reargued Oct. 11, 1920.
Decided Nov. 8, 1920.

Messrs. Arthur G. Powell, John D. Little, Marion Smith, and Max F. Goldstein, all of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Graham Wright, of Rome, Ga., Clifford Walker, of Monroe, Ga., and Bennet & Harrell, of Quitman, Ga., for defendant in error.

Page 65

Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves the constitutional validity under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of certain provisions of the Georgia Tax Equalization Act. Laws Ga. 1913, p. 123.

The facts stated in the petition and amended petition are not disputed, and show that plaintiffs in error returned property for taxation at the value of $44,225. The county board of tax assessors, without hearing, raised the assessment to $80,650. Notice was then given to the plaintiffs in error of the increase. Following the statute, plaintiffs in error demanded arbitration, and named an arbitrator, the board selected an arbitrator, and the two selected a third. Upon meeting of the arbitrators, all agreed that the value assessed by the board was excessive. The arbitrator named by the plaintiffs in error fixed the valuation at $50,000. The arbitrator named by the board fixed the valuation at $66,000. The third arbitrator fixed the valuation at $63,000. The arbitrators could not agree; each adhering to his own view. All the arbitrators believed the assessment too high, but for lack of agreement the arbitration failed, and after 10 days from the date of naming of the arbitrator designated by the board had expired, the statutory requirement that the valuation of the board of assessors should stand affirmed was followed, and the collector demanded payment of the taxes in the sum of $80,640, the valuation fixed by the assessors. The tax collector issued execution for the taxes upon this valuation, and plaintiffs in error filed a petition in equity to prevent the enforcement of the execution, setting up the constitutional objection to which we have referred.

The superior court of Georgia, on interlocutory hearing, granted an ad interim injunction. This action was revered by the Supreme Court of Georgia. Upon a second

Page 66

writ of error from the Supreme Court of Georgia, the act was again held constitutional.

The assessment by the board of assessors was made under section 6 of the act, which provides that the board of county assessors shall meet each year, within 10 days of the date of the closing of the tax returns, to receive and inspect the same. It is made the duty of the board to examine the returns of both real and personal property, and if at any time, in the opinion of the board, any taxpayer has omitted from his return any property which should be returned, or has failed to return property at its fair valuation, the board is authorized to correct such returns and assess and fix the fair valuation upon the property. When the corrections, changes, and equalizations have been made by the board, it is then its duty to give notice to any taxpayer of any changes made in his return, either personally or by leaving the same at his residence or place of business, or, in case of nonresidents by mail. The section further provides that, if the taxpayer is dissatisfied with the action of the board, he may within 10 days from the giving of said notice, give notice to the board that he demands an arbitration, giving at the same time the name of his arbitrator. Whereupon the board shall name its arbitrator within 3 days thereafter and the two shall select a third, a majority of whom shall fix the assessment upon the property upon which the taxpayer shall pay taxes, except so far as the same may be affected by the findings and orders of the state tax commissioner as in the act provided. Provision is made for qualification of arbitrators, and that they shall render their decision within 10 days from the date of naming of the arbitrator by the board of assessors; otherwise, the decision of the board of assessors shall stand and be binding in the premises. (The pertinent part of section 6 is given in the margin.1)

Page 67

In considering certain sections of the Georgia tax laws this court held, in Central of Georgia v. Wright, 207 U. S. 127, 28 Sup. Ct. 47, 52 L. Ed. 134, 12 Ann. Cas. 463, that due process of law requires that after such notice as may be appropriate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 practice notes
  • Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Commissioners of Tallhatchie Drainage Dist. No. 1, 28474
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 5, 1930
    ...So. 525, 142 Miss. 565; Redman v. Drainage District (Fla.), 80 So. 300; Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373, 52 L.Ed. 1103; Turner v. Wade, 254 U.S. 64, 65 L.Ed. 134. There has been a statutory exhaustion of the power of apportioning expenses. Drainage Dist. v. Clark & Parker, 86 So. 859, 124 ......
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...proceeding and defend their rights. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366; Citizens' Savings Assn. v. Topeka, 20 Wall. U.S. 655; Turner v. Wade, 254 U.S. 64; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269; Embree v. Road District, 240 U.S. 242; Jones v. Yore, 142 Mo. 38; Asphalt Co. v. Ridge, 169 Mo. 376; St. Loui......
  • Dow v. State, No. 6
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • April 1, 1976
    ...127, 138, 28 S.Ct. 47, 52 L.Ed. 134 (1907); Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373, 385, 28 S.Ct. 708, 52 L.Ed. 1103 (1908); Turner v. Wade, 254 U.S. 64, 67--68, 41 S.Ct. 27, 65 L.Ed. 134 (1920); McGregor v. Hogan, 263 U.S. 234, 237, 44 S.Ct. 50, 68 L.Ed. 282 19 The United States Supreme Court ha......
  • Town of St. John v. State Bd. of Tax Com'rs, No. 49T10-9309-TA-00070
    • United States
    • Indiana Tax Court of Indiana
    • December 22, 1997
    ...a tax liability is finally fixed. Nickey v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 393, 396, 54 S.Ct. 743, 744, 78 L.Ed. 1323 (1934); Turner v. Wade, 254 U.S. 64, 67, 41 S.Ct. 27, 28, 65 L.Ed. 134 (1920). Substantive due process requires that taxation not be arbitrary, oppressive, or unjust. Great N. Ry. v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
45 cases
  • Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Commissioners of Tallhatchie Drainage Dist. No. 1, 28474
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 5, 1930
    ...So. 525, 142 Miss. 565; Redman v. Drainage District (Fla.), 80 So. 300; Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373, 52 L.Ed. 1103; Turner v. Wade, 254 U.S. 64, 65 L.Ed. 134. There has been a statutory exhaustion of the power of apportioning expenses. Drainage Dist. v. Clark & Parker, 86 So. 859, 124 ......
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...proceeding and defend their rights. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366; Citizens' Savings Assn. v. Topeka, 20 Wall. U.S. 655; Turner v. Wade, 254 U.S. 64; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269; Embree v. Road District, 240 U.S. 242; Jones v. Yore, 142 Mo. 38; Asphalt Co. v. Ridge, 169 Mo. 376; St. Loui......
  • Dow v. State, No. 6
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • April 1, 1976
    ...127, 138, 28 S.Ct. 47, 52 L.Ed. 134 (1907); Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373, 385, 28 S.Ct. 708, 52 L.Ed. 1103 (1908); Turner v. Wade, 254 U.S. 64, 67--68, 41 S.Ct. 27, 65 L.Ed. 134 (1920); McGregor v. Hogan, 263 U.S. 234, 237, 44 S.Ct. 50, 68 L.Ed. 282 19 The United States Supreme Court ha......
  • Town of St. John v. State Bd. of Tax Com'rs, No. 49T10-9309-TA-00070
    • United States
    • Indiana Tax Court of Indiana
    • December 22, 1997
    ...a tax liability is finally fixed. Nickey v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 393, 396, 54 S.Ct. 743, 744, 78 L.Ed. 1323 (1934); Turner v. Wade, 254 U.S. 64, 67, 41 S.Ct. 27, 28, 65 L.Ed. 134 (1920). Substantive due process requires that taxation not be arbitrary, oppressive, or unjust. Great N. Ry. v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT