It is a violation of due process of law for a state supreme
court to reverse a case and render judgment absolute against the
party who succeeded in the trial court upon a proposition of fact
which was ruled to be immaterial at the trial and concerning which
he had therefore no occasion and no proper opportunity to introduce
his evidence.
In a suit to enjoin the collection of a drainage tax, evidence
offered by the plaintiff to prove that his land could not be
benefited by the drainage improvement was ruled to be inadmissible
upon defendant's objection, but was spread upon the record as
carried to the state supreme court upon appeal from the judgment in
defendant's favor. The latter court, after affirming the judgment,
reversed it on rehearing and granted a permanent injunction against
the tax upon finding from the answer and testimony before it that
the land had not been and could not be benefited, and declined to
consider defendant's application for further rehearing.
Held that, in thus rendering judgment against the
defendant without affording opportunity to introduce evidence upon
the question of benefit, there was a violation of due process of
law, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment.
Upon the sustaining of his objection to evidence upon the ground
that the point to which it is directed is immaterial, a party is
under no obligation to offer evidence to rebut that which was
offered by his opponent and ruled to be inadmissible.
A claim that a judgment of a state supreme court violates rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment is not too late, though first made
by the assignment of errors presented to its chief justice when the
writ of error from this Court was granted, if the aggrieved party
was under no duty to anticipate the state court's action before the
judgment
Page 244 U. S. 318
was rendered, and was afforded no opportunity afterwards to
present the claim for its consideration.
138 La. 917 reversed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a suit for an injunction against the collection of a
drainage tax. The drainage district had issued bonds payable out of
the tax, and the plaintiff in error, who held some of these bonds,
was allowed to intervene in defense. At the trial, the plaintiff
offered evidence to show that the land taxed was outside of the
levee system that the drainage commissioners were building, that it
would receive no benefit, and really was an island or islands in
the Gulf of Mexico. The defendant objected, and the evidence was
excluded as inadmissible under the pleadings, but it was spread
upon the record and completed in order to carry the case to the
supreme court. The defendant then put in testimony that the land
was not in the Gulf of Mexico, and that the maps produced could not
be relied upon for the depth of the water when water was indicated,
but cross-examination to show the physical condition of the
property was objected to, the defendants' position being that the
question was not open, and that being the ruling of the court.
Judgment was entered for the defendant
Page 244 U. S. 319
and intervener and was affirmed on appeal by the supreme court.
A rehearing was granted, however, and the court, observing that the
answer and testimony showed that the land was low and marshy, had
not been benefited or drained, and could not be drained under the
present system, held that the case was governed by
Myles Salt
Co. v. Iberia & St. Mary Drainage District, 239 U.
S. 478, decided after the first decision in the present
case, reversed the judgment, and granted an injunction against the
assessment upon this land.
The intervening defendant thereupon applied for a rehearing, but
the court declined to consider the application under its rule that
only one rehearing should be granted. He now brings this writ of
error, and says that he has been deprived of due process of law,
contrary to the 14th Amendment, because the case has been decided
against him without his ever having had the proper opportunity to
present his evidence. Technically, this is true, for when the trial
court ruled that it was not open to the plaintiff to show that his
land was not benefited, the defendant was not bound to go on and
offer evidence that he contended was inadmissible in order to rebut
the testimony already ruled to be inadmissible in accordance with
his view. The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice O'Niell were of opinion
that the case should be remanded to the trial court, we presume
upon the ground just stated. Probably the majority of the supreme
court thought that it was so plain on the uncontroverted facts that
the case was within the principle of the
Myles Salt Co.
case that to remand it would be an empty form -- a mere concession
to technicality. It may turn out so, but we do not see in the
record an absolute warrant for the assumption, and therefore cannot
be sure that the defendant's rights are protected without giving
him a chance to put his evidence in.
Page 244 U. S. 320
The question remains whether the writ of error can be
maintained. The record discloses the facts, but does not disclose
the claim of right under the Fourteenth Amendment until the
assignment of errors filed the day before the chief justice of the
state granted this writ. Of course, ordinarily that would not be
enough. But when the act complained of is the act of the supreme
court, done unexpectedly at the end of the proceeding, when the
plaintiff in error no longer had any right to add to the record, it
would leave a serious gap in the remedy for infraction of
constitutional rights if the party aggrieved in such a way could
not come here. The defendant was not bound to contemplate a
decision of the case before his evidence was heard, and therefore
was not bound to ask a ruling or to take other precautions in
advance. The denial of rights given by the Fourteenth Amendment
need not be by legislation.
Home Telephone & Telegraph Co.
v. Los Angeles, 227 U. S. 278. It
appears that, shortly after the supreme court had declined to
entertain the petition for rehearing, the plaintiff in error
brought the claim of constitutional right to the attention of the
Chief Justice of the state by his assignment of errors. We do not
see what more he could have done.
Judgment reversed.
