Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-04-08
AGAINST THE CITIES.
A NOTABLE DAY IN THE SUPREME
COURT FOR PRoPEsTy-oWNERs.
Questions Of Municipal Liability In the
Matter Of Paving and Grading streets
Decided--Case OF FIRST Impresston-

Mastar of pavto~ sra oe.dias etreets
"a" "'~
Decided--case OF First Impression-
Inc supreme Court OF Appeals rendered
two important decisions yesterday IN |
volving the yichts of f,yonertv- holders as |
.s--. -.s,.~,.. - - 49,. .s
aks'nS' municipalities III sno inH'''' ~
making street improvements.
The f,rst coso NO. th., ~ paoa AGAINST
,:.:
beivin o. ds.. ana the history OF the ntiga-
ton and decision of the court may be |
h~;aav .tstnd a. toItou
olicny seosou ~ Aoho"s'
In February, 1889, Major L. r. Page and |
other property-ownes on Grace street between |
Fifth and sixth, this city, petltioned the Com
mittee on streets 10 repzcs the cutters On that
street. On the 18th OF May the Council. on tho |
recommendation of the committee tho Board OF |
Aldermen concurring), resolved "tbat the sum |
OF S575 be, AID the same Is hereby, appropri- |
ated from the street fund 10 pave granite gut |
ters on both sides OF Grace street from flito 70
Sixth Streets In the winter OF isss-g0 the |
grace OF 1facc street IN 'front.' on ms}o, rn p
house was lowered some three feet Ma)or rage
thcrelofe sue, c'Ita,n meInuors VI tnc s.ion' |
Coinmtec, coonei cu,snh" ltne Wy Entinoeu}l |
and two OF the contractors or workmen VINO did |
the work, Tor trespass on MS properly, upon |
Tho ground that ne was the owner OF Sraco
street In zee 10 tne miudie tnefeci 10 II1n. oi
ms lot' sup;ect only 70 me Guys IowIo, use
thereof ana that TINS cnange IN the grace on tne
street was made by these gentlemen without
authority Of law.
After he instituted nus SUIT inc Sity Souhci. J
saop.eu ~, a ,,aao IN rsiar
| ence thereto. Tho work coat 81 6s4.56.
s,-,- ,,,.,- ,,..r,,,,c,,o,,s
.inO''' ooehi iNsi "oo'.o
ON the trial the Circus, court lnstrucled ,ne
JURY that the Conncii nsd the power 70 aunoI..s
the gtauihg OF inc sheo'. anu tns' 40 ~ niu
ratified the same, tho jury must ma ior the oe-
| PENDANTS.
verdict was found IN accordance Win tnis
instruction. IhcreuTon MAJOR rage optaineu
supersedsas from tho Court OF Appeals, which
yesterday unanimously reversed the judgment
| OF the Circuit Court and held
/. That the fee OF Grace street 70 the middle
| thereof IN front OF his lot was in Major Page.
2. That the resolutions ratiiylng the acts ana
dotngs OF tho defendants IN towering the Bfhue
| Of the street was null and void, because under
| the charter the Council itself ,an only change
the grade OF street by an ordnance or resoiu.
ZION previously ehectcn. inat as !" .ouiu ny.
itson 90 INC Inng una. va ,nsn 40 1one NV
others
q That as the work was done without lawful
authority Major Page had at the time IL was
done vested right OF action for redress for the
wrong done him which the Council could not
| take away.
The case was remanded for further proceed
ngs 10 accordance with the opinion Of the Court
Tho Court further hold that the court below
| erred In admitting certain evidence offered in
behalf OF tbs defendants, but the foregoing are
the important points settled in this case, which
was argued by Judge Staples and Major string
| fellow for Major Page and by Mr.. c. V. Meredith
| for the appeliees
rrvvc-r op THE nrcIsroS
| .,.,a.. ,,s,'a,,,oa ,so r,,h,s y, p-onertv.
no as,.Sioa sn IN al the cites Hence
yortn \, "a 20 n, reparded az settled that work
dona in tho having of streets and involving a
| cSanga ~ ornJe car, oniy be done by authority
~ me civ rouncII anon resolution or ordinance
| adopted before tho work has been commenced.
| and that such authority being legislative ana
| judicial in lis character cannot De delegated 70
the Street COMMITTEES or any engineer re, OF ,ne
| city, and " the work 10 done without sucu pre-
vouB allhorIy OF tne Illy NounoI. u - ,n0a y,
| papie 0, ianncauoh ny supSoque"' o0''o" VI
| sucn Dody. -. - ,,,., a.,
| Inc opinion OF tho Cour, "as u1 1n W
| Judge Lacy, and Is regarded as aoie anu GA
] haustve. ,,.,
III Is right ana lust 10 tne Guy o'isas "nV
dered this WORK 10 pe done 10 AUG tnst ,licy We
titled that they believed they nad LAWFUL aulhorl-
| ~ Tor so dong.
| stearns's Executor Against the City of
| u,,hc,ond
"'cn"ona.
The other case was tnat OF Stearns > eAecuVof
| against the city on hichnono' .,,,
In the year 1851 the cily Oh hichilohu proso-
| cutting the work OF building what ~ known az
\ Church Hill avenue, In order TO make CONVENE
| ent approach TO tho avenue rom rransnh st.cet
orueIea tnls Una. po' rsn,l nn,,ia he c1oSed
between broad anu tranhh sno . ~ ~, p,
ACCORDING Y. plals r py rS, ynIged
neer anu auop'o, ~ ,uo oVu W. ,n,arsect'o, ~
an excavation, when, d. .ne dan,h "
/ - r., ~
SHY OF ioto ,ee, ~ ,n Sron,anr seventytwo
the owner OF tne TO- oi ianu - ,s,,"
Ieet On ,no 10, VI ei u W a., I,nn ira lot
WIN ,ne Gas. m1 ,, ~, nyents ~ Which the
were TWO sI,inll pilSa ., ,, To-, fron, tho
Men'e,n ms s nor, AZ strae. and The ne.es
ears v ~ ~ ,b,s evesuation was TO throw the
land and buildings into the cut below.
VERDICT SET ASIDE.
| Mr. stearns brought n suit against the city for
dansces TInon the first trial of the case In the
,,o, ,o q, ooo wb,cb on motion OF the civ
| 70, ~. Ia a 10 tbo conrt Tho case was then
| snnm,tte6 botb sides waving a Jury. That
GUN, ,,ec he came evidence rendered tude-
Jul vi. w.. ~. WI H., ana from this an anneal wss
nien. iVl ' 40. .' ryy;ntiT Eranhijn stanrns Jr
| srecntoy ~ FranfIin Stearns deceased.
~ -, ,hs cIiv was that under its
s., ro.ars a. had a y;oht "a grade this street
I" tse manner in whica IL did grade 1t. The
conten,,on On the part of the piaintiff was that
the action Of The city Amounted 10 a taking Of
.ne ronartv for nuhIjc nurnoscs and there
fore he was entitled 10 tho constitutional pro-
| ,ect,on arhich nroyides that personal property
| hon ~, no 81 zen without making tus; com
| siai ~, oo % ,natnyitv M line Court of
| Rbnroais 40 held Judre Lewis delivering the
oninin,on. The Court reversed the Judgment
OF tho Circuit Court and set up the verdict OF
| mo inrv in tho court below and directed hat
| a Judgment be entered In favor OF the plaintiff.
HE case WAS argued in the Court Of Appeals
| nv uenry n Cannon ESQ for the appellant
| "a ~, Cherics Y Meredith for tho appellee.
t,d u,nton copcnrTed in the result but dis
ouusp 1rnr, 'he Views exnrassed.
gr,is A. nj . s,aao ~ what "a termed conse-
I'M, .1 - nv % i,Instrated in nronerty's
~, ."u ,S,, obova or hollow the street
oo.ns e, IT,, stearhs's uronertv was utterly an
nnieIiotad
Waddill Against sebrec.
.,,, ~, an.
| Another important case DECIDED, anu one
which 10 regarded n some respecls os , h.ss III
preston In virginia, was thatoi "auuii asain''
sebree. ,..o,.,o, x,ars Thu
,hi iUus no ,o1,saiosas ,rtnc,naI In a CON
abhty OF an uuisciooeu ~ ny sneniac ner-
tracl. <. Wne.nsr ~ sa'' ntdacbment viii lie
lormancc oi n,'resident IN enforce
neainse sio es. ~ 90 ann uoder the contract.
.ne Pay Wnas, -, ,ha contract was one Of pur,
aha o. or " ~, a,,f,o NJ
cnaso vi o. .rosa ovar tho sale nv Judge
l9S ,h Of his sarm ear the civ
~ the annellee. ". T. Ssbrec, at
tn. Nice ~ soS'5oo. The contract was made
tno p anG,,, MIN " r farrell. who acted for
~ @u ~, uDd,sc,osed nr,ncnai and after the
nsSmen, of the earnest-money OF $500 Sebree