Evening star., 1896-12-17

office would amount = IA taking of their
property for public use without compensa-
ton. But the Injunction was refused by
Judge McComas. and no further action was
taken in the matter.
Within the limits of the map in question
there were forty-seven subdivisions tnen
existing. which were more or less changed
by the plan laid down on the map. anil
September q, 1905, the Commissioners filed
In the District Supreme Court, hoLire a
special term as district court of the
ohted states, a separate petition as to
each or the forty-seven subdivisions, for
the CONDEMNATION or permanent right of
way for the public over all the land tnot al
ready owned by the United States or the
District OF Columbia, or dedicated to inc
PUBIC use as highway lying within The
ilmitS OF each of these forty-seven Subdi-
visions.
Ihe hrst case taken up by the court
lJudge cox was that of Dennison and
Lei 6eientons subdivision Of Mt. Pleasant and
fIeasant Pla1ns, and the jury of seven ap-
pralsers were duly sworn. At the conclu-
SION OF the case Judge Cox, upon the mo-
tlon OF one of the land owners. February K
t lo'o' SCI aside the verdict which the jury
mao rendered and dismissed the petftion
under which the proceedings were haG nm
the ground that the act of Congress. under
"hlcn the proceeding was institute l. is un-
constitutional and void
In SO deciding Judge COY hold +b,+ ~.
proper construction Of section II of the act
providing that where the use of a cart onIy
OF tract OF land Is condemned, the i,1ry in
asnessing damages therefor shall take into
ou.siueIauon the benefit the purpose for
which 1t is taken may be to the owner ~
owners OF such tract or parcel bv enbanc
ing the value of the remainder of the same
ran,,,s nau snai give their verdict accordingly,
SSquiie Gu the jury to take into consideration
tne Dement'S which may result from 1he
subsequent opening and improvement of
tne street. and that so construed the soo-
.r, .ion ~ volo. lie further held that because
act is void. iS "hoie
FROM the decision of Judge Cox the Com
nlissloner2 appealed to the Court of An
that seat; a,.u "niie the appellate court held
that section IL Of the act ia unconstitn-
ional and that section 15 which nrovidas
.or assessing one-half Of the damae ees mon
the land benefited could not be enforced
io1u neeaIse' d;i as suggested by Judge Cox, the
law dld not fix either the taxing district
or tne rule OF apportionment, but left those
matters to be determined by the Jury under
the direction of the court, the court re-
.s. ue.seu Judge Cox's order dismissing the
Petl,ioh' ana remanded the case to the
supreme Court Of the District for further
proceedings in conformity to the opinion
OF the court. That is, the Court of Anneals
HMr. t: Chlef Justice Alvey dissenting) held
lnal II IS not competent for Congress
wnere part of a tract is taken for a high
way to deduct from the value of the mart
taken the benefit to the remainder OF the
tract, no matter how clear and immadiat. r..
the benefit may be.
The Effect.
-Ihe effect of the decision of the Court
ol Appeals was to hold the proceedings
valid so far as the filing of the map and
the ascertainment of the value of the land
actually taken and the amount of other
damages were concerned, and to hold them
invalid so far as concerned both the de-
duction and the assessment of benefits Ar
cordingly, when the case was remandeo
10 the court below judgment was entered
IN favor of each of the land owners (ex-
cept lew who obtained new trials) for
ms damages, as ascertained by the Jury
Ihere We're about seventy-five lots, parts
only or which were taken, in Dennison
and Leightons subdivision There were
some twenty other lots which were at
iected by the abandonment of existing
streets. AS to all these lots Except the
rev who obtained new trials on the ground
that the amounts allowed were. insufficienU
the owners were satisfied with the result
except the owner of lot 81. In his case
Judgment was entered in his favor for S2-
o'3.So.the value as ascertained by the
jury of the part of lot 81 which was con-
demned disregarding the benefits deducted
-so36 4O-and the additional assessment of
$1,O12O- He appealed to the Court of Ap-
peals and the Commissioners thereupon
took cross-appeal In the Court of APP
peals the court affirmed the Judgment
which had been entered in pursuance of
Its mandate, whereupon both parties ap-
pedieo to tne CnlteQ states supreme Court.
The second case tried was that of the In
gleside subdivision. and in that the lower
court, following the above noted decision
of the Court of Appeals, gave Judgment in
favor of the several land owners for the
value of their land actually taken, as as
certained by the jury, without deduction
or assessment on account of benefits
Thereupon. all parties appealed to the
Court Of Appeals, and, when that court de-
cided n the first tried, all parties
appealed to the United States Supreme
Court
So far as THE assessments for benefits
is concerned in these two cases, 1t is agreed
on all hands that they cannot stand. The
land owners claim that section 10, under
which the assessment is made, is wholly
void and on behalf of the Commissioners
it is conceded that an erroneous principle
was adopted in confining the assessment
to land in the particular subdivision in
volved. But If section Is is valid and
should be enforced, then it will be neces-
sary to recall the Juries in these cases to
make new assessment upon proper prin-
ciples.