# Petition for a Writ of Certiorari — Tuttle v. Bell > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA43086415_0913%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1942 - **Citation:** 315 U.S. 815 ## Text ) 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. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA43086415_0913%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.