Case ID: f-cas_1/html/0393-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 184.
    ALEXANDRIA v. MANDEVILLE.
    [2 Cranch, C. C. 224.]
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    Nov. Term, 1820.
    Streets — Paving — Local Assessments — Evidence.
    1. It is not necessary that an order of the common council for the pavement of any particular street should be passed as a by-law and submitted to the mayor for his approbation.
    2. Upon a motion for judgment against a proprietor of lots, liable for the expense of paving the street opposite the lots, the court will not receive evidence that the pavement was badly done.
    This was a motion by Mr. Taylor, attorney for the common council of Alexandria, for judgment against Joseph Mandeville, for his proportion of the expense of paving Pitt street, between Cameron and Queen streets, th; recovery of which, by motion, is authorized by the amended charter of the 25th of February, 1804, § 11, (2 Stat. 255.)
    By the by-law of the 7th of September, 1802, the proprietor of a lot is liable to a tax of $1.32, on every front foot of his lot on a street sixty-six feet wide, which should thereafter be ordered by tbe counsel to be paved. Tbe street in question bad been ordered to be paved, tbe tax bad been demanded, and payment refused, and due notice given of tbe present motion.
    Mr. Swann, for defendant, offered to prove that tbe order for tbe paving of Pitt street, between Cameron and Queen streets, was not passed as a by-law after three readings, agreeably to tbe rules adopted by tbe common. council.
    
      
       LReported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]
    
   THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge,

absent) refused to permit such evidence to be given, deeming it irrelevant and immaterial.

He also offered evidence that tbe pavement was badly' done. But tbe court rejected tbe evidence; and in tbe case of Common Council v. Swann, [Case No. 3,066,] at tbe same term, decided (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent) that it was only competent for tbe defendant to show that tbe contract made by tbe common council for tbe pavement was not fairly made, or fraudulent, or not with good faith.

Judgment for tbe plaintiff.