Case ID: f2d_59/html/1051-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John C. GOTWALS, Herbert B. Crosby, Luther H. Reichelderfer, Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation, Appellants, v. Ida M. MILLER, Walter H. Hoffman, and Zenza D. Hoffman et al.
    No. 5496.
    Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
    Argued May 7, 1932.
    Decided June 6, 1932.
    W. W. Bride, R. E. Lynch, and Vernon E. West, all of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
    William Cogger, of Washington, D. C., John E. Hughes, of Chicago, Ill., and Philip F. Biggins, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
    Befqre MARTIN, Chief Justice, and EOBB, VAN OESDEL, HlTZ, and GEO-NEE, Associate Justices.
   PER CURIAM.

This appeal is by the commissioners of the District of Columbia from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District, directing the cancellation of certain assessments for street paving levied against the properties in question, under the front foot rule, authorized by what is known as the Borland Amendments (38 Stat. 517, 524; 39 Stat. 676, 716).

We have ruled upon the validity of front foot assessments under those acts in a number of eases, holding that the assessments were void because of inequality and discrimination. Johnson v. Rudolph et al., 57 App. D. C. 29, 16 F.(2d) 525; Dougherty et al. v. American Security & Trust Co., 59 App. D. C. 301, 40 F.(2d) 813; Taliaferro et al. v. Railway Terminal Warehouse Company, 59 App. D. C. 376, 43 F.(2d) 271; Crosby et al. v. Dodge, 60 App. D. C. 36, 46 F.(2d) 727.

We are unable to discover any distinction in the present ease that would justify a departure from our interpretation of the law as announced in the decisions in the above eases.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.