UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

Where the bill attacks the constitutionality of the state law as applied by the state court, and the application of a case heretofore decided by this Court runs to the merits, the motion to dismiss will be denied. The refusal of the courts of the state to consider as essential to proceedings to foreclose tax liens certain ministerial duties the omission clubjuris

Page 223 U. S. 544

of which can in no way affect the rights of the property holder does not amount to denial of due process of law.

The tax laws of the State of Washington involved in this case are clear and simple in their requirements, and the judgment of the supreme court of that state attacked in this suit did not deprive plaintiff in error of his property without due process of law either because of lack of compliance with the statute or of sufficiency of notice to the owner or description of the property. Ontario Land Co. v. Yordy, 212 U. S. 152. Where a decision is based on two grounds, either of which is sufficient to sustain it, neither is obiter. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Mason City R. Co., 222 U. S. 237.

171 F. 51 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the validity under the Fourteenth Amendment of certain tax proceedings in the Washington, are stated in the opinion. clubjuris

Page 223 U. S. 547