State ex rel. Ferguson v. Moss
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court. — IIon. GL H. Burokhartt, Judge. This section, so far as it seeks the enforcement of a penalty in the summary manner provided, is a palpable violation of the constitution of the United States and of this State: First, Because it deprives the accused of the right to a jury trial. Second, Because it deprives him of his property without due process of law.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court. — IIon. GL H. Burokhartt, Judge. This section, so far as it seeks the enforcement of a penalty in the summary manner provided, is a palpable violation of the constitution of the United States and of this State: First, Because it deprives the accused of the right to a jury trial. Second, Because it deprives him of his property without due process of law. Third, Because it puts him upon summary trial on a criminal charge, without indictment found or presentment made, according to the forms of law, and affords him no right of appeal. Fourth, Because it fixes an…
1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.
This is a proceeding by certiorari at the relation of James Eerguson to review the action of the county board of equalization of Howard county in assessing the propei-ty of relator under the provisions of "Wag Stat., sec. 34, p. 1165, for taxation. The only question pre sented by the record for our determination is the constitutionality of said section, which is as follows:
Section 34. If any person shall, with iutent to defraud, deliver to any assessor a false list of his property, it .shall be the duty of the assessor to give notice in writing thereof to the said county board of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Den Ex Dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Bartlett v. KaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- State ex rel. Maguire v. DraperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Gachet v. McCallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1874
- Vance v. BlairOhio Supreme Court · 1849
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Spitcaufsky v. HattenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1944
- Sonleitner v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- State ex rel. Dalton v. BakerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- State ex rel. Van Raalte v. Board of EqualizationSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- State ex rel. Ward v. AtchisonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903