Search Supreme Court Cases

BAKER V. DRUESDOW, 263 U. S. 137 (1923)

U.S. Supreme Court

Baker v. Druesdow, 263 U.S. 137 (1923)

Baker v. Druesdow

No. 12

Argued October 2, 1923

Decided November 12, 1923

263 U.S. 137


1. That the Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent a state from taxing the intangible property of a railroad, ascertaining its value by deducting the value of its physical assets from the value of its property as a whole within the state, or from taxing railroads by other rules than those prescribed for other business concerns, or from imposing double taxation, are propositions long settled, denial of which is frivolous. P. 263 U. S. 140.

2. Over-assessment due to mere error of judgment is not reviewable here as a violation of due process of law. P. 263 U. S. 141.

3. Where assessments of tangible and intangible railroad property are made independently by separate boards, but the taxes are laid on both at the same rate, collected by the same county officers, and treated by the state law as constituting together a single

Page 263 U. S. 138

ad valorem tax, systematic and intentional assessment of the intangibles at full value while tangible property in general is assesed at less does not deny a railroad equal protection of the law if, by reason of lower valuation of its tangible property, its property in the aggregate is not valued at a higher rate than other property in the county. P. 263 U. S. 142.

229 S.W. 493 affirmed.

Review of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Texas sustaining and enforcing a tax on railroad property in a suit brought by its receivers to enjoin collection. The questions concerning the validity of the state taxing statute upon which the writ of error was based are held to be without substance, and that writ is dismissed, but the writ of certiorari is granted, and, under, it other questions arising in the administration of the statute are reviewed.

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: BAKER V. DRUESDOW, 263 U. S. 137 (1923)

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.