1. A bridge owned by a bridge company and used for railroad
purposes is assessable in Illinois as real estate by the assessor
of the county in which it lies, and not by the state Board of
Equalization as a railroad. P.
258 U. S.
123.
2. A bill in the district court to enjoin enforcement of a state
tax on real property as based on a discriminatory overvaluation,
which fails to show that the plaintiff availed himself of
presumably adequate legal remedies afforded by the state law or,
the amount being the only matter in dispute, that he paid or
tendered the amount confessedly due, and which does not offer to
pay such amount as the court may find to be equitably due, should
be dismissed for want of equity. P.
258 U. S.
124.
Affirmed.
Appeal from a decree of the district court dismissing the bill
for want of equity in a suit brought by the appellant
Page 258 U. S. 123
to restrain the appellees, county officials, from collecting a
tax on the appellant's bridge, alleged to discriminate, in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Company, an Illinois
corporation, owns a bridge across the Mississippi River. That part
of it which lies within the State of Illinois was assessed by the
county assessors for purposes of taxation as real estate, and was
valued at $100,000. To prevent collection of the tax, the company
brought, in the federal court for Southern Illinois, this suit for
an injunction against the county treasurer and other state
officials. It is claimed that the tax is void first, because the
bridge is a railroad and as such is assessable only by the State
Board of Equalization; secondly, because the property was
deliberately assessed at 150 percent of its actual value, whereas
the property of other corporations and individuals was assessed at
only 40 percent of its value, and that thus the company is deprived
of property without due process of law and is denied equal
protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. A
motion to dismiss was sustained by the district court on the ground
that the complainant has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at
law. The case comes here on appeal under § 238 of the Judicial Code
because of the constitutional question raised. That such property
is assessable by the county officials as real estate, and not by
the State Board of Equalization as a railroad, was settled by
People v.
Page 258 U. S. 124
Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co., 287 Ill. 246, 295
Ill. 176, 181.
*
Whether the bill sets forth a case for equitable relief is the
only question requiring consideration.
Since the appellant asserted a claim arising under the federal
Constitution, the district court had jurisdiction, although there
was no diversity of citizenship. Discrimination in taxation
effected by systematic inequality of assessment may violate the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Greene v. Louisville & Interurban
Railroad Co., 244 U. S. 499,
244 U. S. 502.
But the bill failed to show that plaintiff was being deprived of
property without due process of law or was being denied equal
protection of the laws, or that there was any danger that it would
be.
Compare Wells Fargo & Co. v. Nevada, 248 U.
S. 165,
248 U. S. 168.
The law of Illinois affords ample opportunity to question the
amount and the validity of an assessment both before administrative
tribunals and in its courts.
The provisions relating to the assessment and taxation of real
estate apply to the assessment and taxation of bridge structures
like that of the appellant. Hurd's Revised Statutes of Illinois
1919, c. 120, § 354. Every such assessment made by the county
assessors is subject to revision by them. Sections 319, 320.
Moreover, upon complaint in writing that an assessment is
incorrect, a board of review is required to give a hearing, and to
correct the assessment "as shall appear to be just." Section 329;
Standard Oil Co. v. Magee, 191 Ill. 84. Payment of taxes
as finally assessed and extended against real estate is enforced,
in the first instance, not by distraint or levy, but by legal
proceedings. Sections 185-193. An application is made by the
collector to the county court for judgment against the property.
Compare Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. People, 145
Ill. 596, 161 Ill. 514, 167 Ill. 15, 176 Ill. 267.
Page 258 U. S. 125
The proceeding in the county court is a civil suit for the
collection of a debt.
People v. Merchants' Bridge Co., 282
Ill. 408. The owner may appear and defend on any legal ground --
among others, that the assessment was deliberately or fraudulently
discriminatory, and that hence the tax is void.
People v.
Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co., 287 Ill. 246, 295 Ill. 176.
From the judgment of the county court, an appeal may be taken to
the supreme court of the state upon giving a bond to pay the amount
of the assessment and costs, and the appeal will operate as a
supersedeas if the appellant deposits with the county collector an
amount of money equal to the amount of the judgment and costs. If,
upon final hearing, judgment for sale of the lands for taxes is
refused, the deposit is returned by the collector to the appellant.
Section 192. Moreover, where it is claimed that a tax is void
because of overvaluation which is fraudulently discriminatory, the
courts of the state will grant relief in equity if the plaintiff
has sought correction from the board of review and failed to secure
redress.
Sanitary District v. Young, 285 Ill. 351, 367.
Here, the alleged invalidity consists wholly in discriminatory
overvaluation, and, so far as appears, appellant did not even apply
to the board of review to correct the assessment. There is thus no
basis for the contention that resort to a suit such as this was
necessary to prevent either a sale for an illegal tax creating a
cloud upon title or multiplicity of suits to recover back the tax,
or other irreparable injury.
See Singer Co. v. Benedict,
229 U. S. 481;
Ohio Tax cases, 232 U. S. 576,
232 U. S. 587;
Farncomb v. Denver, 252 U. S. 7.
The bill fails, also for another reason, to state a case
entitling plaintiff to relief. Before the suit was begun, it had
been decided that the taxing statute was valid, that the property
was subject to taxation, that it was assessable as real estate, and
that the assessment should be made, as
Page 258 U. S. 126
was done, by the county assessor, and not by the state Board of
Equalization. The amount of the tax payable was therefore the only
matter in controversy. Under such circumstances, a plaintiff
seeking an injunction must aver payment or tender of the amount of
taxes confessedly due, or at least offer to pay such amount as the
court may find to be justly and equitably due.
People's
National Bank v. Marye, 191 U. S. 272;
Raymond v. Chicago Traction Co., 207 U. S.
20,
207 U. S. 38.
The bill contains no such allegation.
Decree affirmed.
* That so much of the bridge as lies within the state of
Illinois is taxable there, although used in interstate commerce,
was held in
Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. Illinois,
175 U. S. 626.