Wade v. Turner

91 S.E. 690, 146 Ga. 600, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 394
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 1, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 690 (Wade v. Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wade v. Turner, 91 S.E. 690, 146 Ga. 600, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 394 (Ga. 1917).

Opinion

Per Cueiam.

The sixth section of the tax-equalization act (Acts 1913, p. 123) requires an examination of the returns of the taxpayers of the county by the board of county tax-assessors, and it is made their duty to assess and fix the just and fair valuation to be placed on the property returned. When any change’ is made in the valuation of the property of a taxpayer as fixed by him in his return, such taxpayer must be given notice of such change. If the taxpayer is dissatisfied, he may demand an arbitration and have a hearing before arbitrators as provided in the act. These arbitrators are required to render their decision in ten days, or else the valuation as fixed by the county board shall stand affirmed and shall be binding in the premises. In Vestal v. Edwards, 143. Ga. 368 (85 S. E. 187), section six of the act mentioned above was attacked as violative of the due-process clause of the constitution, for the reason, among others, “that the act requires the arbitration to be made within ten days from the time of the selection of the arbitrator of the tax-assessors, without making any allowance for inability to agree upon a third assessor or arbitrator, or adequate time for the examination of properties and the ascertainment of their value, or for any other cause that might interfere to render such arbitration impossible within the time specified in the act.” It was held that this part of the act was not obnoxious to the due-process clause of the constitution of this State or of the United States. The principle of the decision announced in that case is controlling, and it was erroneous to grant the injunction.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Board of Tax-Assessors v. Catledge
160 S.E. 909 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Southeast Georgia Land Co. v. Rogers
122 S.E. 221 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
McGregor v. Hogan
263 U.S. 234 (Supreme Court, 1923)
McGregor v. Hogan
112 S.E. 471 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Ogletree v. Woodward
105 S.E. 243 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1920)
Turner v. Wade
95 S.E. 220 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 S.E. 690, 146 Ga. 600, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wade-v-turner-ga-1917.