CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AS JUDICIAL LEGISLATION

Authors

Abstract

Plaintiff brought suit in Missouri to enjoin collection of taxes alleged to be discriminatory, basing his claim for equitable relief on the absence of any other remedy. The supreme court of Missouri dismissed the bill, without hearing on the substantive question, on the ground that there existed, under a state statute, an adequate remedy in appeal to the state tax commission. Previously the court had denied, in several cases, that the statute gave such a right, and had allowed equitable relief in one case on that ground. When the decision in the principal case was rendered, it was too late for the plaintiff to avail himself of the newly-found remedy. On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment. Held, the decree of the Missouri court violated the constitutional guaranty of "due process of law" contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. Brinkerhoff-Faris &- Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, so Sup. Ct. 451.

Recommended Citation

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AS JUDICIAL LEGISLATION, 29 Mich. L. Rev. 247 (1930).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol29/iss2/16