So also it has been held that due process of law does not protect the individual who, in obedience to an interpretation given by executive officers to a statute, takes action which is later held by the courts to be unwarranted by that statute. Thus, with reference to a state tax law the court in Thompson v. Kentucky28 declare: "Due process of law does not assure to a taxpayer the interpretation of laws by the executive officers of a State as against their interpretation by the courts of a State, or relief from the consequences of a misinterpretation by either. . . . It is the province of the courts to interpret the laws of the State, and he who acts under them must take his chance of being in accord with the final decision. And this is a hazard under every law, and from which or the consequences of which we know of no security."
26 Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505; 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390; 47 L. ed. 563. See also Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97; 24 L. ed. 616; Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land Co., 18 How. 272; 18 L. ed. 372; Wilson v. North Carolina, 169 U. S. 586; 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 435; 42 L. ed. 865.
27 Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674; 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 229; 42 L. ed. C22. See also French v. Taylor, 199 U. S. 274; 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 76; 50 L. ed. 189.
28 209 U. S. 340; 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 533; 52 L. ed. 822.