Ward v. Love County
253 U.S. 17, 40 S. Ct. 419 (1920)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state and its counties are obligated to refund taxes paid under compulsion on lands that were legally exempt from taxation under federal law. A payment made under threat of land sale and imposition of penalties is considered coercive, and the obligation to refund arises from constitutional due process principles, independent of any state statute authorizing such a refund.
Facts:
- Coleman J. Ward and other members of the Choctaw tribe received land allotments under a federal act which stipulated the lands would be nontaxable for up to twenty-one years.
- A subsequent 1908 Act of Congress purported to remove these restrictions on alienation and subject the lands to taxation.
- The U.S. Supreme Court, in the prior case of Choate v. Trapp, had already declared this tax exemption to be a vested property right protected by the Constitution that could not be repealed by Congress.
- While litigation challenging the taxes was ongoing, officials of Love County, Oklahoma, assessed taxes on the claimants' exempt lands.
- County officials threatened to advertise and sell the claimants' lands if the taxes were not paid, and had already sold other similarly situated lands.
- To prevent the sale of their properties and avoid an 18% penalty, the claimants paid the taxes under protest, asserting their illegality.
Procedural Posture:
- Coleman J. Ward and other claimants filed a claim with the Board of County Commissioners of Love County to recover taxes they had paid.
- The county commissioners disallowed the claim.
- The claimants appealed the disallowance to the district court of Love County (a state trial court).
- The district court overruled the County's demurrer and entered a judgment in favor of the claimants.
- Love County, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the tax payments were voluntary and therefore could not be recovered.
- The claimants, as petitioners, sought and were granted a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a county's demand for payment of an unlawful tax, backed by threats to sell the taxpayer's land and impose significant penalties, constitute coercion that allows the taxpayer to recover the payments even without a specific statute authorizing a refund?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Van Devanter
Yes. A demand for payment of an unlawful tax under threat of land sale constitutes coercion, and the county is constitutionally obligated to refund the money. The Oklahoma Supreme Court's finding that the payments were voluntary was without any fair or substantial support. The claimants, facing the choice between paying the illegal taxes or losing their lands and incurring a steep penalty, yielded to the county's demand under compulsion. It is a well-settled rule that money obtained through imposition may be recovered back, as the obligation to do justice rests on all entities, including governments. To allow the county to collect these taxes by coercive means and retain the proceeds would be an arbitrary taking of property without due process of law, in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The county's liability is not diminished even if it paid over a portion of the funds to the state, as it collected the money with full knowledge that the tax was being disputed.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing that a state court cannot use a plainly untenable non-federal ground, such as mischaracterizing a coerced payment as 'voluntary,' to shield its decision from U.S. Supreme Court review of a federal constitutional claim. It powerfully reinforces the principle that due process under the Fourteenth Amendment prevents a state or its subdivisions from retaining money collected through coercive enforcement of an unlawful tax. The decision solidifies the legal definition of duress in the context of tax payments, clarifying that the threat of property loss is sufficient to render a payment involuntary and recoverable, thereby protecting property rights against arbitrary government action.
