Smith v. Indiana

by Henry Billings Brown

United States Supreme Court

191 U.S. 138

Smith  v.  Indiana

 Argued: October 22, 23, 1903. --- Decided: November 16, 1903

This was a petition filed in the circuit court of Marion county by the state, upon the relation of Martha and Benjamin Lewis, against the auditor of Marion county, for a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant, in his official capacity, to allow an exemption of a mortgage of $500 upon a lot of land in Indianapolis owned by the relators, and that the same be deducted from the value of such lot.

The petition was based upon an act passed by the general assembly March 4, 1899, the first section of which declares: 'That any person being the owner of real estate liable for taxation within the state of Indiana, and being indebted in any sum, secured by mortgage upon real estate, may have the amount of such mortgage indebtedness, not exceeding $700, existing and unpaid upon the first day of April of any year, deducted from the assessed valuation of mortgage premises for that year, and the amount of such valuation remaining after such deduction shall have been nade shall form the basis for assessment and taxation for said real estate for said year.' [Horner's Anno. Stat. (Ind.) § 6272a.]

An alternative writ having been issued, defendant interposed a general demurrer, which was sustained by the court, and the relators declining to plead further, judgment was entered against them.

Upon appeal to the supreme court, the action of the court below was reversed, the law held to be constitutional, and the cause remanded. 158 Ind. 543, 63 N. E. 25, 214, 64 N. E. 18. Thereupon the defendant made formal return to the writ, alleging the unconstitutionality of the act, both under the state and Federal Constitutions, to which relators demurred. The demurrer was sustained, and a judgment entered for a peremptory mandamus commanding the defendant to allow the exemption, and to deduct from the assessed valuation of the real estate the amount of the mortgage, $500, and also that relators recover from the defendant their costs, which, however, appear never to have been taxed. This judgment was subsequently affirmed by the supreme court upon the authority of its opinion upon the previous appeal, and a writ of error sued out from this court:

Messrs. Horace E. Smith and Roscoe O. Hawkins for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 139-145 intentionally omitted]

Messrs. Cassius C. Hadley, L. G. Rothschild, and William C. Geake for defendant in error.

Statement by Mr. Justice Brown:

[Argument of Counsel from pages 145-148 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court:

Notes