The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-02-14
SUPREME COURT CASES.
sETERIL ITPORIINT OPINIONS
HANDED DOUN YTSIERDsI.
Tho Case of Violet v. the city Council Of
Alexandria H. Eever<ed-Brown Vs..
Brown ADMINISTRATIVE Cases.

handed down by the Supreme Court OF
Appeals yesterday.
violet. &c, -. city Council of Alex
andria. From the Corporation Court OF
Alexandria. Reversed. opinion by Card
well, judge.
The questions discussed arc the rights
Of municipal corporations. under their
charters TO assess property AUDITING on
streets FOR improvements 10 such streets
Can am assessment Tor a local improve
ment bc exacted by "A municipal corpora
ton until the person from whom 10 IS
oxacted shall have had opportunity to
appear a-rd contest the legality. justice,
ana correctness Of the assessment?
Held. The XVIII Amendment, Const
L. S.. Is not restricted either TO the eN-
orcis. Of the right of eminent domain. or
10 other proceedings affecting liberty or
the rights Of property The provision
that private property shall not be taken
for public use without Just compensation
is simply an additional guarantee 10 me
provision that the citizen shall not be
deprived Of his liberty or property VIII
out due process 81 law. one provision
Is not exclusive Of the other. one pre-
vents the taking Of private property. uh-
der the power Of eminent domain for
any purpose but n public use. and then
oufy for just compensation. the other
prevents it being taken for such Use
without duc process Of law Due pro-
cess of law" t. sufficiently defined ln
such AN inquiry, AS requiring that
person shall have reasonable notice ana
a reasonable opportunity TO be heard nc
fore an impartial tribunal before any
binding decree can he passed affecting
his right 20 liberty or property. Lewis
ON Eminent Domain Sec go.
Local assessments are made under the
taxing pOwer This class Of assessments
is distinguishable from our general idea
Of tax. but owes iis origin 10 the same
source or power: and this power 10 tax
should exist in The discretion or the
Legislature. without the interference of
tho courts unless some radical principle
Is violated. or the guarantees Of the Con-
stitutiOn. are disturbed under color OF
its exercise" = Nroom 22'.
This brings ZIP the question first pro-
pounded as 10 such assessments. ana
whether such an assessment is the TAX
ing Of property without due process OF
law within the meaning Of the amend
ment to the Federal Constitution
o. IN every instance where rights Of
property are involved. before the liability
OF the taxpayer Is finally determined. he
must have some kind Of notice OF the
proceedings, and an opportunity 20 be
heard as 20 the value of the property
and the amount OF the charge. This is
n rule OF universal application, and found
ed upon the plainest principles OF JUS
fice. Stated generally, due process OF
law" requires an orderly proceeding,
adapted 10 the nature Of the case I'D
which the citizen has opportunity 10 be
heard defend. and enforce and protect
his rights. There must be n notice OF
some kind which viii call the attention
Of the parties 10 the subject, and INFORM
them when and where they VIII ne per
mitteI 10 expose any all eeed wrong IN
the yaluatiJn Of which they may COM
plain.
Cases of Ike subiee matter decided by
This court since the adoption Of the XVIII
amendment are reported in 70 Graft 20
81 Graft. 51l. II Va. i73. 8 Va. so. ~
Va 1895. and The constitutional question
was raised only in the case Ia - Va.
Judge Lacy. speaking for the Court.
said in that case that while the cases
cited by counsel for plaintiff in error heid
that the ordinance without sncn pro
visions for notice was unconstitutional
vel. as am original question 90 was "oh-
vfoue that all possible notice is given
bv the progress Of the work Itself. ana
under our system of law every citizrn
g. held charged with the notice OF I'D"
public law"
n is not enough that the property
owners have notice by chance on nave
hearing as "a matter OF favor. The Ia"
must require notice 10 them ana give
them a right to q hearing, and an OPP
,,,rtttnit- 10 be heard. II matters not,
uuon the question of consututonHAis ~
chat fhe assessment has been fairly APP
portioned The constitutional validity
Of The law IS 10 be tested. not by what
has been. bur by what may be done ulaer
frs terms The LEGISLATURE may prescribe
tho kind OF notice. and ihe manner %,
giving II. bur IL cannot dispense WIN d"
notice. = y. T.. 1871.
"I-pon this question. / am OF opihlo"
that where "a statute, Do o., tine ,''", ~
~ a municipai corporation, authorizes
~ assessment % any part or the COSY
a-d EXPENSES Of opening. extending graz
lad, ,r otherwise improving the streets
e. upon the land aputtins on
.,,.h streets So opened, &c Without pro-
,.,tin,, for a notice 20 the person whose
nronertv may be affected by the assess
mont giving him an opportunity 10 APP
,,oar and contest the legality, justice ana
correctness OF the assessment al SOME
..,, tafore the assessment becomes
Gral such statute is IN CONNECT WIN Tue
rourtoenth amendment 10 the Constitu-
ton I'm the United States. and that am
.,sseeanent made hereunder is void, ana
creates no lien upon his property hul
NOT IN conflict with the Constitution Of
the State.
Municipalities having no inherent power
,u these cases n is necessary 10 inc
validity Of their action that they Keep
closely 10 the authority conferred. Iheir
ordinances and reeolutions must be adopt
Cd i'm due form of law and they must
keen within them afterwards. They can
bind the taxpayer only in the moie
prescribed. and can substitute no oiheT'
Cooley Oh Taxation. Edn. 800
When the power 10 levy assessments IS
delegated by the Legislature 10 It munici-
nal corporation. the act must De strlctiy
construed. and the city authorities must
keep closely within its provisions.
Brown VS. Brown. From the circuit
Court of Uenrico. Affirmed. opinion
by Cardwell. Judge.
sophia Brown sues for divorce from
Jo.enh Brown. prays for the custody on
tbair children. for alimony FOR her MAIN
tonance and theirs. pending the suit. FOR
counsel fees. and an injunction. which
Wa granted. to- restrain defendant from
disnosing OF his properly. Joseph r.
..-,,,.1 fhat at Tho time Of their mar
rf,ge soohia e. was married 10. and not
dfvorred from. one Allison. and there
fo~e incapahic 10 contract marriage with
anofh.r Decree below that the children
Of the later union are legitimate under
the laws o. Virginia. though the mar
riere was null and void. and not binding
unon either party thereto. because or
sophia R.'s Legal disability and inca
nacifv 10 contract second marriage. her
f...H. 4 HnH f.f B.