Petition for a Writ of Certiorari — Tuttle v. Bell

) FEB 2 1949

“a

CRARI TS fF: ss g vey|

IN THD

Supreme Court of the Wnited States

Ocroser Term, 1941,

No. © J e)

EUGENE TUTTLE, er at.,

Petitioners and Appellants below,

vs.

JAMES C. BELL, County Treasurer anp Ex-Orricio

County CoLLecTor or Witt County, InurNo!s,

Respondent and Appellee below.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME

COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND

/ BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF.

Leuanp K. NEeEvss,

Chicago, Illinois,

Counsel for Petitioners.

Rosert S. CusHManN,

Rosert C. Kecxr,

Of Counsel.

RAEN PRINTING COMPANY, £10 WEST JACKSON, CHEASC

INDEX.

PAGE

Petition:

I. Summary Statement of the Matter Involved. 1

EE: Deri a i ek aE 4

III. The Question Presented................00. +

IV. Reasons Relied for the Allowance of the Writ 4

Brief :

I. Report of Opinion of the Court Below....... 6

"TL See os kN Aes es 6

Til. Statement af the Uaee. . «oo 60kiss dcevaents 7

IV. Specifications of Error.............-sseess 14

V. Summary of Argument................008- 15

V1. Re ok bs chides ei ee aes 16

I. The Illinois Supreme Court’s Decision

Denies Judicial Relief to Owners of

Farm Lands Injured by Systematic and

Intentional Underassessment of Other

Weal eet | vcs kivaes chs eee 16

II. Petitioners’ Real Estate Is Assessed in

Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

to the Constitution of the United States. 21

III. City and Rural Real Estate Cannot, Con-

sistent With the Fourteenth Amendment

Be Separately Classified and Assessed at

Different Levels of Assessment......... 25

VI. Gonstesien 5. oo. Aes ee a eae 32

ADDON 6 dc ccc e ib ete teks ge Candice lige eeauee 33

CITATIONS.

Cases.

American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. McDonough, 61

Fed. (2d) 558 (C. C. A. 7th, TOGB) . osc ccs ccesasvees 30

Bell’s Gap R. R. v. Penn., 134 U. S. 232 (1890).......- 28

Bistor v. McDonough, 348 Ill. 624 (1932)...... 20, 26, 27, 30

Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S.

AIEEE vic xtc cv skucenere reer tanneteessee iss 23

C. B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Frary, 99 Ill. 34 (1859).......--- 20

Cumberland Coal Co. v. Greene County, Pa., 284 U. S.

INE ons dacewdn hanns br ven s eee aS Eee Te SS ess 24

Cummings v. National Bank, 101 U. S. 153 (1879)..... 18

Dunham v. City of Chicago, 55 Til. 357 (1870)........ 20

DuPage County v. Jenks, 65 Til. 275 (1872)........--- 20

First National Bank of Urbana v. Holmes, 246 Ill. 362

CODD cca cewcatn gen tosis o's nernteses 20, 26, 27, 30

Greene v. Louisville & Interurban Ry. Co., 244 U. S.

GD CHIT 55 SS Faas kW ee te een as 18

Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150

I ica ncn ww ne ns ees es cxebuaway en shh ene ts 31

Hartford Co. v. Harrison, 301 U. S. 459 (1937)......- 28, 31

Iowa-Des Moines National Bank v. Bennett, 284 U. S.

I I cs he Cars dn ap ns en et tne v8 eet oF 7, 24

Louisville G. & E. Co. v. Coleman, 277 U. S. 32 (1928).. 31

Louisville & Nashville Ry. Co. v. Greene, 244 U. S. 522

CROAT conn wn cncgndencdscdnemiercesaaherce reece’ 18

Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Browning, 310 U. S. 362

ere et 28, 29, 30

Pelton v. National Bank, 101 U. S. 143 (ITO) aie

People v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 300 Til. 399 (1921)......

iii

People v. Cesar, 349 Ill. 372 ¢: } APS are ea 20

People v. Lots in Ashley, 122 Ill. 297 tg Pere 20

People v. St. Louis Bridge Co., 357 Ill. 245 (1934)..... 30

People ex rel. McDonough v. Reinecke, 354 Ill. 351

(RBBB) ovcc cave ena e sudan ans oh ies Hess e's eee 30

People v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 357 Ill. 173 ( 1934) ...... 30

People ex rel. Wangelin v. Gillespie, 358 Ill. 40 (1934). 30

Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Stuckart, 286 Ill. 164

C: ) ene eer eres re ree hr ors 18, 20

Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Co., 207 U. S. 20

(IDOT) oc ccvsccccccctsvevssnsateeseceneneseses 18, 22

Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412 (1920)... 31

Schlesinger v. Wisconsin, 270 U. S. 230 (1926)........ 31

Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, Nebraska, 260

UW; B GAL CORR). oii es ieee eee 4, 5, 7, 21, 23, 26

Southern Ry. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400 (1910)...... 31

State Board v. People ex rel. Goggin, 191 Ill. 528 (1901) 22

Sunday Lake Iron Company v. Wakefield, 247 U. S. 350

(MDIG) 6. ose (apn ccksadedensa eth eneeasoaysasenes 22

Taylor, et al. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 88 F. 350 (C. C. A.

Cth, WONG) vance nse leeks Si Veg re aeeioe aeeee 18

U. 8. v. Board of Comrs. of Osage County, 251 U. S.

(6. nara errr e peers Cia tec 24

Statutes.

Ch. 120, 1939 Ill. Rev. Stats. 501, Sec. 20............ 2, 8, 33

Sec. 237(b) of the Judicial Code (Sec. 344 of Title 28

U.S. C. A.), as amended...........eeeeeeeeeeeeees 4,6

Constitutional Provisions.

Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution

. .8, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32

Section 1 of Article IX, Illinois Constitution of 1870...

idivkastaer ike nee eae 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 27, 28, 33

Supreme Court of the Anited States

Ocroser TERM, 1941.

No.

EUGENE TUTTLE, Er At.,

Petitioners and Appellants below,

vs.

JAMES C. BELL, County Treasurer anp Ex-Orricio

County CoLLecTor or WiLL County, ILLINOIs,

Respondent and Appellee below.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME

COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

To the Honorable, the Chief Justice and Associate

Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:

Your Petitioners, Eugene Tuttle and the other owners of

farm lands named in the complaint herein, respectfully pray

for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the Su-

preme Court of the State of Illinois, which affirmed a de-

cree of the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois.

I.

Summary Statement of the Matter Involved.

This is a suit in equity brought in the Circuit Court of

Will County, Illinois, by Petitioners, owners of certain

farm lands located wholly outside the limits of any incor-

7 a

porated city or village in Will County, against the Re-

spondent, County Treasurer and ex-officio County Col-

lector of that County, seeking an injunction against the

collection of 1939 real estate taxes produced by the portions

of the assessments of Petitioners’ lands alleged to be

illegally excessive.

Petitioners’ complaint in the trial court was dismissed

on Respondent’s motion. (R. 15.) Petitioners elected to

stand upon their complaint and the trial court entered a

final decree dismissing the suit for want of equity. (R.

15.) The tacts in the case, therefore, are the well pleaded

allegations of the complaint admitted to be true by Re-

spondent’s motion to dismiss. These facts, which are more

fully set forth in the brief attached hereto, are as follows:

Section 1 of Article IX of the Illinois Constitution’ pro-

vides for levying property taxes ‘by valuation, so that

every person and corporation shall pay a tax in proportion

to the value of his, her or its property—* * er (R. 4)

Pursuant thereto, the Illinois General Assembly has enacted

statutes? which provide for the assessment of real estate

in each county for the year 1939 and quadrennially there-

after at ‘‘its fair cash value, estimated at the price it would

bring at a fair, voluntary sale’. For many years the tax-

ing authorities of Will County have generally disregarded

the statutory requirement that real estate be assessed at -

its fair cash value and in lieu thereof have deliberately and

intentionally valued real estate for assessment purposes

at varying proportions less than fair cash value. In 1939

the Will County taxing officials announced that they would

fix the assessed value of real estate at 30% of its fair cash

value. (R. 8.)

Before the 1939 quadrennial assessment was made in

Will County, representatives of farm organizations con-

—

1 See Appendix.

2See Appendix.

ea Se te Pee te

—— a ees —

Sa a

3

ferred with the Respondent, who is also ex-officio Super-

visor of Assessments, pointed out to him the existing

‘illegal and unconstitutional discrimination in assessment

against farm lands and in favor of town and city lots in

Will County in the 1935 assessment (the previous quadren-

nial) as found by the Illinois Tax Commission, and re-

quested that this discrimination be removed in the 1939

assessment. (R. 9.) This request was ignored and the

assessment was made on the same basis as theretofore.

(R. 9.) As a result of the foregoing, Petitioners’ farms,

together with farm land generally in Will County, were

deliberately and systematically assessed in 1939 by these

officials at 50% above the prevailing level of assessment

used in assessing town and city lots and at 25% above the

prevailing level of assessment of all real estate in Will

County, including all farm land.

Each Petitioner thereafter duly filed a complaint against

the 1939 assessment of his parcel of land with the Board

of Review of Will County. After hearing Petitioners’ evi-

dence offered in support of their complaints the Board

of Review denied the same and refused to remove the dis-

crimination against their property. (R. 10.)

Petitioners, therefore, have been compelled to bear an

illegally excessive and disproportionate share of the gen-

cral tax burden in violation of Section 1 of Article IX of

the State Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to

the Constitution of the United States. (R. 10, 11.)

The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the

trial court upon the ground that the admitted allegations

of the complaint did not state a case for relief. Petitioners

seasonably filed a petition for rehearing (R. 25 to 38),

which was denied on November 12, 1941. (R. 38.)

4

II.

Jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court is invoked under

Section 237 (b) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the

Act of February 13, 1925, C. 229, (Section 1, 43 Stat. 937,

Section 344, of Title 28 U.S. C. A.), in that a final judg-

ment or decree has been rendered by the highest court of

the State of Illinois where a right or privilege was specially

set up or claimed by the Petitioners under the Fourteenth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and

such judgment or decree erroneously denied to Petitioners

such a right or privilege.

Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, Nebraska, 260

U. S. 441 (1923), is believed to sustain the jurisdiction of

this Court to review this case by certiorari.

Til.

The Question Presented.

The question presented is: Does the plan of assessment

of real property for taxation in Will County, Illinois, for

the year 1939, pursued by the local assessment officials and

applied to Petitioners’ lands, violate the equal protection

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution

of the United States?

IV.

Reasons Relied on for the Allowance of the Writ.

1. Petitioners are entitled under the Fourteenth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to he

treated on a basis of equality with other taxpayers as Te

quired by the State Constitution and Statutes.

2. The plan or method of assessment involved in this

case constitutes a systematic, arbitrary and intentional dis-

5

crimination by taxing officials in violation of the equal pro-

tection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con-

stitution of the United States.

3. The decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois upholds

the violation of the equel protection clause of the Four-

teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,

to the injury of your Petitioners.

4. The decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois that the

plan of assessment involved in this case does not violate

the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

to the Constitution of the United States is in conflict with

the applicable decisions of this Court in Sioux City Bridge

Co. v. Dakota County, Nebraska, 260 U. S. 441 (1923), and

in other cases cited in Petitioners’ brief filed herewith.

Your Petitioners, in the brief accompanying this petition,

will elaborate upon the foregoing reasons for the allow-

ance of the writ of certiorari.

Wuererore, your Petitioners respectfully pray that a

writ of certiorari be issued out of and under the seal of

this Honorable Court, directed to the Supreme Court of

Illinois commanding that Court to certify and send to this

Court for its review and determination, on a day certain to

be therein named, a full and complete transcript of the rec-

ord and all the proceedings in the above entitled case, and

that the said judgment and decree of the Supreme Court

of Illinois may be reversed by this Honorable Court, and

that your Petitioners may have such other and further re-

lief in the premises as to this Honorable Court may seem

meet and just; and your Petitioners will ever pray.

Respectfully submitted,

Lextanp K. NEEVEs,

Counsel for Petitioners.

Rosert §. CusHMAN,

Rosert C. KEcx,

Of Counsel.