Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1896-02-14
VIOLET VS.. ALEXANDRIA.
HOW TO ASSESS.

AIhSc W UAANh WV PSAOSANA'
may make street improvements, and
charge the same to abutting property
owners. The decision, which was writ
ten by Judge Cardwell, and received
the approval Of the entire court, cover:
twenty-four typewriter pages, anG
while the court does not reverse iti
previous opinion on the case of Sands
against the city of Richmond, it han
dies the question in an entirely differ
ent manner.
The case decided yesterday was tha
of Violet against the City Council o.
Alexandria, and the opinion, as stated
in Yesterdays GAzRrTs, expressly
states that in order to tax the property
owner for public improvements he
must first be given notice and an op
portunity to object to it, and that such
assessments must then be made in &C.
cordance with the provisions of the
charter of the city or town, and that
these charters must not be in conflict
in this respect with the constitution OF
the United States. The effect of the
decision will be to make it necessary to
amend the charter of nearly every
town and city in the Commonwealth,
10 order that street improvements may
be charged to abutting property-own-
ers.
The case in hand hinged largely
upon the thirty-third section of the
charter of the city of Alexandria. as
amended by an act of the Legislature,
approved March l, 1855, which pro-
vides that whenever any street shall be
laid out or extended, or any existing
street graded, paved, or repaved, or
culvert or sewer built, or curbing put
down. two-tbirds of the expense there
of shall be paid by the owners of the
real estate benefited thereby, and that
whenever any sidewalk shall be laid the
whole expense thereof shall be paid by
the owners Of the real estate benefited
thereby. The City Council of Ale1an-
iria adopted an ordinance in 1856,
STIMULATING that whenever paving,
graveling or other improvements of the
streets should he ordered to be done,
whether of the sidewalk or carriage
way, that it should be the duty of the
Superintendent of Police, Immediately
upon the completion of the same, to re-
turn to the clerk of the Common Coun-
ell q statement of the total expense
thereof, with list of the owners Of the
ground in front of the improvement,
The clerk 10 make up proper bill for
such Improvement to be furnished the
collector OF taxes for collection, ac-
cording to law, for two-thirds of the
amount, which shall bear the same
ratio to the cost of all the work done on
that half of the street on which his lot
fronts as the front OF the proprietors
ground bears to the front of all the lots
on the same side of and bounding on
that portion of the street so improved.
Under this ordinance these bills were
TO be collected in the Same manner that
other bills for taxes, assessments, &C.,
are collected by that official.
BY virtue of the thirty third section
of the charter, the City Council passed
an ordinance authorizing certain work
on Alfred street from the south line of
Duke street 10 the north line of Wilkes
street, authorizing the proper adver-
tisements for proposals for said i'm
provement, and assessing two-thirds OF
the cost of the work against the abut-
ting property holders.
Pursuant to this ordinance tho i'm.
proyement was made at cost Of ST.,
9S9 Sc, and this was apportioned &C.
cording to the frontage among tho
lands abutting on the street mentioned,
the city however, paying one-third Of
the entire sum. OF this frontage the
heirs of Robert G. Violet owned 352
feet 9 inches, and were assessed with
1885, .O3, as the proportion of the total
cost of the Improvement.
On March 20, 1895, the City Council
of Alexandria filed it's bill in the Cor
poration Court of the city Of Alexan-
dria against the appellants to snforos
the lien claimed by the complainant on
the appellants property. The defend
ants demurred to and answered the
bill, the answer admitting that tho
work was done, but denying that the
lot or ground had been benefited by
the improvements, and denying that
the complainant had lien on the
ground. Upon hearing the cause the
Corporation Court overruled the de-
murrer, and decreed sale OF the
property, etc., unless the heirs paid to
the complainant the amount claimed in
the bill and the costs Of the suit. From
this decree an appeal was awarded by
Judge of the Supreme Court OF Ap-
peals.
The ground upon which the appel
lants denied the validity of the claim
asserted was as follows
l. The ordinance under which the
claim arose was contrary to the four.
teenth amendment Of the Constitution
of the United States, which declares
that no State shall deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law.
3. The charter and ordinance of the
city of Alexandria were in conflict with
section l, article x, of the Constitution
of Virginia, in which it Is provided
"Taxation, except as hereafter provid-
ed, whether imposed by the State,
county, or corporation bodies, shall oe
equal and uniform, and all property,
both real and personal, shall be taxed
in proportion to its value, to be ascer'
| taine6 as nreacrihed hv law. No one