165,  18  Fed.  385  (1883);  Darling  v.  Gunn,  50  111.  424  (1869).  See,  also.
Gatch  V.  City  of  Des  Moines,  63  Iowa,  718,  18  N.  W.  310.  311,  313  (1884);
Fallbrook  Irrigation  District  v.  Bradley,  1(>4  U.  S.  112,  17  Sup.  Ct.  56,  41
L.  Ed.  369  (1896),  note  to  official  report  of  case.
The  leading  case  on  the  requirement  of  notice  is  Stuart  v.  Palmer,  74  N.
122  ADMINISTRATIVE   POWER  AND   ACTION.  (Part    1


PITTSBURGH,  C.  C.  &  ST.  L.  RY.  CO.  v.  BACKUS.
(Supreme  Court  of  United  States,  1894.     154  U.  S.  421,  14  Sup.  Ct.  1114,
38  L.  Ed.  1031.)

In  Error  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  Indiana.
Action  to  restrain  the  collection  of  taxes.  The  court  rendered  judg-
ment for  defendants,  which,  on  appeal,  was  affirmed  by  the  Supreme
Court  of  the  state.     133  Ind.  625,  33  N.  E.  433.
Mr.  Justice  Brewer   delivered  the  opinion  of  the  court.^     *     *     *

It  is  contended  specifically  that  the  act  fails  of  due  process  of  law
respecting  the  assessment,  in  that  it  does  not  require  notice  by  the
state  board  at  any  time  before  the  assessments  are  made  final;  and
several  authorities  are  cited  in  support  of  the  proposition  that  it  is
essential  to  the  validity  of  any  proceeding-  by  which  the  property
of  the  individual  is  taken  that  notice  must  be  given  at  some  time  and
in  some  form  before  the  final  adjudication.  But  the  difficulty  with
this  argument  is  that  it  has  no  foundation  in  fact.  The  statute  names
the  time  and  place  for  the  meeting  of  the  assessing  board,  and  that
is  sufficient  in  tax  proceedings ;  personal  notice  is  unnecessary.
