Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/85960/spencer-vs-merchant
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:22:26+00:00

Document:
The question submitted to the supreme court of the state was whether this assessment on the plaintiff's lot was valid. He contended that the statute of 1881 was unconstitutional and void because it was an attempt by the legislature to validate a void assessment without giving the owners of the lands assessed an opportunity to be heard upon the whole amount of the assessment. He thus directly, and in apt words, presented the question whether he had been unconstitutionally deprived of his property without due process of law in violation of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as of article 1, sec. 7, of the Constitution of New York, and no specific mention of either constitutional provision was necessary in order to entitle him to a decision of the question by any court having jurisdiction to determine it. The adverse judgment of the supreme court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the state, necessarily involved a decision against a right claimed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which this Court has jurisdiction to review. Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Co., 1 Wall. 116, 68 U. S. 142 ; Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432 , 96 U. S. 442 ; Furman v. Nichol, 8 Wall. 44, 75 U. S. 56 ; Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Needles, 113 U. S. 574 , 113 U. S. 579 .
Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 75 U. S. 548 ; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 17 U. S. 428 ; Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514, 29 U. S. 563 . See also Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491 , 100 U. S. 497 . Whether the estimate of the value of land for the purpose of taxation exceeds its true value this Court, on writ of error to a state court, cannot inquire. Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 78 , 104 U. S. 80 .
for notice to and hearing of each proprietor at some stage of the proceedings upon the question what proportion of the tax shall be assessed upon his land, there is no taking of his property without due process of law. McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 37 ; Davidson v. New Orleans and Hagar v. Reclamation District, above cited.
In Davidson v. New Orleans, it was held that if the work was one which the state had the authority to do, and to pay for by assessments on the property benefited, objections that the sum raised was exorbitant, and that part of the property assessed was not benefited, presented no question under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution upon which this Court could review the decision of the state court. 96 U. S. 96 U.S. 100, 96 U. S. 106 .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.