The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-12-22
STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
OPINION or THE SUPREME COURT
As TO ABUrrING PROPERTY
A Question OF he Greatest Importance 70
All the Citizens of the state-hHpense'
20 be Paid Out Of the Revenues

folk and others against Chamoe'i"i"'
IS strl creating great interest and causes
endless trouble TO the Finance
Of the City Council. II practically de-
clares that all street Improvements V
% he pald out Of the revenues Of the re-
s~neotiye cities. while heretofore It has
been customary TO charge, for instance
having OF sidewalks and opening ana
paving Of alleys TO the abutting property
owners.
Apparently the case affects only Directly
the city Of Norfolk. but inasmuch as the
provisions OF its charter are more OF lvss
identical with those Of the charters OF .he
othor cities In this State. 81 follows That
The decision OF the highest court III thiS
state Is Of vast importance 10 al S'''o"
and municipal corporations.
THE CITY authorities OF Rlchmond are
fulv aware Of this fact. and the finance
Committee has already e~ndeaVoie1 ="
md a way out OF the dilemma ana ny
which TO raise the necessary Iuhes LOT
street improvements should the opl"lJh
Of the court Of appeals remain as IL s'anus
at present.
In issuing bonds for various purposes
tho city authorities have WITHIN ABOUT
$500 00 to come 10 the limit Of the bonded
debt Of the city. and this state OF aHalrs
A bound 10 grow worse until 1880, when by
a reasscssmcnt Of the valuation OF prop
CITY In the city these limits can he eN-
tended. OF this SCOO.OOo. however, between
1000 and $4,000 viii have TO be eN-
PENDED in the completion OF the new Clty
Hall.
The opinion OF the court is n very
sweeping one, and efforts have been made
...Nffr O. s1n rffN UtfnTnpW OF N0IIOlk
having requested Mr.. G. V. Meredith TO
apply on his behalf for a rehearins, and
January 18th has been set down by the
court as the date when the matter VIII
be taken up. The opinion. which covers
ninety pages legal cap. was handed down
at Wytheville. June 80. 1892, Judge Rich
ardson writing the same.
II was entirely overlooked by the news
paper correspondents in that place. and
only a few days ago. by a mere accident
the attention OF the City Attorney of Rich
mond was called 10 the contents Of the
opinion.
After reading II through Mr.. Meredith at
once communicated with Colonel Cut
shaw. cautioning him that a continuation
OF the old style of assessing abutting
property-owners fer certain street inn
provements was Illegal. and would impli-
cate the city in legal proceedings.
ANol klON INK dig lillB Va NIt NbAAon1o VI
the opinion, the city authorities have con-
tinued since June to order the work TO be
done in the old way, in spite Of its He
Cality as pronounced In the opinion. II Is
strongly hoped, however, by the Interested
authorities that a rehearing Of the case
would bring about a modification Of the
opinion, especially inasmuch as 1t is
known that Judge Lewis and another
judge Of the court did concur only In the
an.l4. - H. gr-. - - l.. Al -41tN
The opinion was given OF an appeal
from a decree Of the circuit court Of the
city Of Norfolk, rendered on May %, 1889,
in the chancery suit then pending, where
in William w. Chamberlain was plaintiff
and the city Of Norfolk and L. II. Shields,
the city collector. were defendants.
The important facts in the case are the
following;
In the latter part of the year 1884 the
city authorities Of Norfolk decided with
out the assent from the majority of land
owners along the line TO open and exteld
Plume street from CRANKY to Bank street,
sixty feet wide, which involved the widen
ing Of the same ten feet from CRANKY TO
Concord street.
Failing TO purchase or obtain by agree
ment from the owners along the line of
the street the and necessary for widening
and extending the same, commissioners
were appointed by the corporation court
In due season 10 condemn the land I'm ac-
cordance with the provisions of law. w.
w. Chamberlain was one of the land own
ers In question, owning a vacant lot cor
her Of Grandby and Plume streets, of which
a strip ten feet wide on CRANKY street and
running back thirty-nine feet was to be
taken.
Thu commissioner gave as their opin-
Ion that for this portion Of the lot and
for the damage to the residue thereof be-
yond the peculiar benefits TO be derived
from the work TO be constructed, Mr..
Chamberlain was entitled to 81, 200 as a
just compensation.
This report was confirmed by the court.
The money awarded Chamberlaine was
paid TO Chamberlaine, whereupon the city
acquired title to that portion of the lot.
subsequently a committee Of the city
council assessed the cost of the proposed
improvements to the AUDITING property
owners, and Mr.. Chamberlain was as
bessed $500. or $500 more than he had re-
eeiVed for the portion of the lot taken
by the city.
In this order OF assessing the better
ments the city authorities for the first time
declared that the whole expense should
be assessed against the landowners along
the line. The assessment was made ac-
cording to no rule Of uniformity, but after
NisltihB lhe N the committee as
sessed what they thought would DE the
benefits aceruing TO the several pieces of
property.
When the city attempted to collect the
amount assessed against Chamberlaiae he
OBTAINED an injunction, subsequently made
permanent, and the city Of Norfolk was
ordered to refund $500 and interest, which
had been paid by him under Protest.
FROM this decree the city of Norfolk OBJ
tanned an appeal and supersedeas.
The question involved in the case was
whether the city had the right after
carrying out the condemnation proceed-
inss' TO assess against the owners for
betterments TO the residue of their prom
erty an amount greatly In excess OF the
amounts paid TO them as concentration
Tor the land taken. After n careful CON
slderation OF the subject the court is OF
the opinion that the city had no ,nithor-
ity 10 Impose any such burden.
III mas been repeatedly held Nv tbs
Court, the opinion set forth. .that mn
hlclpal corporations have the poxer 10
make local assessments for ima,rove-
ments' subject, however, 10 the 'condi-
uohs prescribed by their charters and
me CITY ordinances made I'm pursuance
thereoi. These cases follow. though with
some noteworthy qualifications. the doc.
trine laid down In the leading New York
cases. the People against Afavor. etc. ~
brooklyn. The doctrine held In that case
IL viewed In the light OF the present
constitution OF Virginia. cannot a. yvo,Id
seem. be considered otherwise mar as mn
warrSnted and dangerous I'm .ha extreme
Yet IL was very MAXWELL.