MISSOURI
v.
DOCKERY

U.S. | 1903-11-16
No. 180
191 U.S. 165 Supreme Court of the United States (1903) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 48 L. Ed. 133 · 24 S. Ct. 53 · 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1474 · SCDB 1903-040
Cited by 56 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Missouri's state board of equalization assessed railroad, bridge, telephone, telegraph, and express companies at valuations substantially below their actual cash value, which the petitioner challenged as violating the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses. The Supreme Court affirmed the Missouri Supreme Court's dismissal, holding that even assuming fraud in the tax assessments, the petitioner had no federal constitutional claim because states retain the power to grant total or partial tax exemptions, and it is for state courts to determine whether such exemptions were authorized under state law.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of' Missouri, upon 'a judgment quashing an alternative writ of mandamus to the state board of equalization. The petition alleges that the board, instead of assessing the total actual cash value of the taxable property of certain railroad, bridge, telephone, • telegraph and express companies, made pretended, fraudulent, inadequate and not uniform assessments upon such property at valuations varying from about a quarter to forty-eight per cent of the actual value, except that of the express companies, which they did not assess at all. It alleges that in this way the petitioner will be deprived of his property without due process of law and will be denied the equal protection of the laws, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment Of the Constitution of the United States. The motion to quash denied the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Missouri to issue the writ, and also the sufficiency of the grounds on which the writ was allowed. The court sustained the motion without an opinion or statement of reasons.

For all that appears, the court may have quashed the writ on grounds of local practice. But if this consideration be laid on one side, it is impossible to say that the board of equalization has not acted with regard to those companies which it has assessed. It has laid a substantial tax upon them. Its judgment is final under the Missouri constitution and statutes. Mo. Const. Art. X, § 18; ítev. Stat. §§ 9344, 9356, c. 149, art. 8, March 9, 1901, Stat. 1901, p.

232. If, nevertheless, we assume that mandamus would lie upon a clear case of fraud adequately alleged and proved, State Board of Equalization v. People, 191 Illinois, 528, 539, it would be a strong thing to revise the judgment of the board on the strength of allegations of undervaluations, and the single adjective “fraudulent’’-without more specific allegations of fact. State v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 165 Missouri, 502, 516, 517; State v. Talty, 166 Missouri, 529, 560; Manchester v. Furnald, 71 N. H. 153, 158; Knight v. Thomas, 93 Maine, 494; Maish v. Arizona, 164 U. S. 599, 611; Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 421, 434, 438. See Fogg v. Blair, 139 U. S. 118, 127.

However this may be, the petitioner admitted at the argument that his own tax was correct, and that he would have had no case under the Fourteenth Amendment if the companies had been exempted altogether. Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 293-295; Connolly v. Union Saver Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, 562. But his rights under that amendment turn on the power of the State, no matter by what organ it acts. Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 318.

Therefore, if the Supreme Court of the State construed the statutes as exempting express companies from this tax and substituting another, as it is argued on behalf of the defendants in error that the statutes do, the petitioner cannot complain here. For the legislature could exempt them, and the question whether it has done so or not is for the state courts to decide in their construction of its acts.

Furthermore, if the State could grant a tot'al exemption it could grant a partial exemption, and if it has done so, de facto, through its officers, the petitioner cannot come here on an allegation that the officers acted as they did without the authority of the State. That again is for the state court to decide. The petitioner has no case under the Constitution of the United States, and nothing else is open. This is a writ of error to a state court, so that questions under the state constitution and laws cannot be considered as they might be on error to a subordinate court of the United States.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (27 total)

  • Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1941)
    …lly expressed in its constitution, we are in fact passing judgment on “the power of the State as a whole.” Rippey v. Texas, 193 U. S. 504, 509; Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U. S. 69, 79; United Gas Co. v. Texas, 303 U. S. 123, 142; Missouri v. Dockery, 191 U. S. 165, 171; Iowa-Des Moines Bank v. Bennett, 284 U. S. 239, 244. [*294] By the constitution of California, as authoritatively construed by its Supreme Court and therefore as binding upon this Court as though ratified by all the voters of California, the c…
  • Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1932)
    …r the Fourteenth Amendment, with its guarantee of equal protection of the laws. The legislature may grant exemptions. Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 300; Hope Natural Gas Co. v. Hall, 274 U. S. 284, 289; Missouri v. Dockery, 191 U. S. 165. It may impose graduated taxes on gifts, inheritances, or on income. Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U. S. 124; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 109; Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 25; see also [*349] Stebbins v. Riley, 268 U. S. 137.24 It…
  • Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 227 U.S. 278 (U.S. 1913)

Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (21 total)

View all 21 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw