Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1892-04-09
Important Decisions.


Important Decisions.
The Court OF Appeals rendered two im'
poit mt del iana on Thursday involving The
rights OF property holders as agalnit mum.
cipslties Ia the matter of making street i'm.
proyemeIti
The Grst case was that OF Page aga!ntt
Ee'vin ct ais
Ia February. 1889. Msj ,r L. R Page and
other property owners on Graoe street. Bob.
mond, psLitIoned the Committee on Streets
to repave the cutters on that street. Ga the
1Sta OF May the council, on the reoommen-
d ,tion Of the committee, resolved "thtt the
sum OF 1915 be, and the same Ia hereby, ap.
proprist ID from the street fund t. pave
grauite CUTTERS on be tt tides OF Graos street
from Fifth to Sixth strett,." In the winter
OF 16S9-90 the grfds of Grace street in
front of Msjor Pages house Was lowered
some three feet. Msj, Page therefore sued
certain members Of ihs street OF mmittee,
Colonel Cut lhaw (the city engineer), aud
! two OF the contractors or woikmen who did
| the work, f,r ttesepsse on bis property,
upon the ground that be was the owner Of
Grace street In fee to the middle thereof In
front OF his lots sutject only to the city's
lawful use thereof and that this change 10
the grade of the street was made by theee
gentlemen without authority of Law.
After he Instituted the suit the City Coun
| frm!ng the work done ard the contracts
made In reference thereto The work cost
! 81. .694 Sc
On tae trial The Circuit Curt Instructed
the Jury that the council had the power to
authorizes the grading OF the etIest. and that
as 1t had ratified the SEM, the jury muet
fiod for the defendants.
A verdict YVES found 10 accordance with
this instruction. Therefore Msior Pege OBJ.
tel aed supersedeas from the Oouit OF Ap-
pealp, which on Thursday unanimously re-
vslsed tie Judgment OF the Circuit COURT,
and bed
l. That the fee OF Grace street to the
middle thereof 10 frot t OF his lit was In
Major Page.
| Q That the resolution rsti;yipg the acts
and doinRs of the defendants in lowering
the grade OF the street was null and void,
because urdsr the charter t1e Council Itself
can only change the grade of street by
su ordinance or resolution previously en-
acted. That SO 1t could net Itself do the
thing that was done In the way 1t was
done, it could not ret!fy 1t when go done By
ot5eie.
8. That So the work vas done without
lawful authority Msjor Page had at the time
1t wes done a vested right Of action for re-.
dress for the wrong done him which the
Council could not take away.
| The caso was remnpded for further pro-
ceedings iu accordance with the opinion o!
the Oou,t
The decision involves the rights OF prop.
| eit ?. holders and tsI-pasers In all the citiss.
Henceior,h 1t is to ce regarded as settled
that work done in the paving Of streets and
i,voivlrg q change Of grade osn only be
done BY authority of the City Council upon
reso utt or ordinance adopted before the
work has been commenced, end ttat such
authority being legislative aud judicial In
| It's character caBnot be delegated to the
Street Committee or any engineer of the
city, and il t1e work ls done without such
previous authority of the ty Council 1t Is
| incapable Of rat;fcs ton by eubstquent &C.
ilon of suoh body.
The opinion OF the Court was delivered by
Judge Lacy.
The other case was that OF Stearns's ex-
eout,r against the city OF Richmond.
In the year 1882 the city OF Richmond,
prosecuting the work IF building what Is
known as Church Hill avenue, In order to
make convenient approach to the avenue
from Franklin street, ordered that that por.
ton of 81 at street between Broad and Franz
lin, should be graded according to plans cub
mitted by the city engineer and adopted by
the Council. This involved an excavation.
which, at the intersection Of 21st and Grace.
attained depth of 60 or more feet The
late Franklin Stearns was the owner OF the
lot of land fronting on the north side oil
Grace st its intersection with the east line OF
2Is,. Upon this lot we're two small brick
tenements, OF which the western wall was
sitpated 20 feet from the east line OF 2lst
street. and the necessary results Of this eVRo'
nation was to throw the land and buildings
into the cut below.
Mr.. Stearns brought suit against the city
for damages Upon the fret trial OF the case
tn the Circuit Ocurs the Jury found yer.
dict for The plaintiff for 81 900. which, on
motion of the city, was set aside by the court
The case was then submitted, both sidel
wsiving jury. That court upon the same
evidence rendered judgment for the city
and from this an appeal was taken by the
plaintiff. franklin Stesrrs. jr. executor ot
franklin Stearps, deceased.
The contention Of the city was that under It'll
general powers it had right to grsde this stree,
In the m amer in which it did grade it. The con
tantion on the part of the plaintiff was that the
scton of the city amounted to taking of private
property for Iubic purposes, aud therefore he wa'
entitled to the constitutional protection, which
nroyides that personal property shall not be &c
fsksn without making juss compensation, and 9
mtiority of the Court q Appeals 80 held, Judge
Lewis delivering the opinion. The court reversei
ihs Judgment of the Circuit Court and set up tbs
verdict Of the Jury in tho court below and direct
ed th.t Judgment be entered in favor OF th'
. Judge Hinton c,ncurred in the result, but dis
, senssd from the views expressed.
This is not csse Of Whist is termed conse
, quential damages, illustrated In property be
ing left standing above or b,low the street grade
Mrs. Stesrn's property was utterly annihilsted.
BUCKLEN ARNTCA SALYE
. THE BEST sALvE In the world for Cuts, Bruises
Sores, Ulcers, Salt Rheum, Fever Sores, Tetter