Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-07-05
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
~ Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virginian-Pllot.)
DEWEY V. CITY OF DIES MONIES.
Supreme Court of the United States.
February 81, 1899.

Supreme Court of the United States.
February 81. 1899.
A STATE STATUTE AUTHORIZING
AN ASSESSMENT UPON PROPER
TY FOR A LOCAL IMPROVE
MENT, AND IMPOSING UPON THE
LOT OWNER, WHO WAS A NON
RESIDENT OF THE STATE, A
PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR THE
ASSESSMENT. IS VOID AS BEING
A TAKING OF PROPERTY WITH
OUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND
A VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.
This was a suit to set aside certain
assessments made on PLAINTIFFS lots, Sit
uated in Des Moines, for paving streets
upon which the lots abutted. The PLAIN
tiff resided in Chicago. ILL.,. and had
no actual notice of the proceedings
against his lots. Under the Iowa stat
ute the assessments were made a lien
on the lots and the owner was made
personally liable for their payment.
The plaintiff was held liable for the
assessments by the lower court and
the lots ordered sold and the Supreme
Court OF Iowa affirmed this decision,
whereupon the plaintiff appealed. The
Court says:
We are compelled to hold that we
are confined to Il discussion of the
only Federal question which this record
presents, viz. The validity of the
personal judgment against the plaintiff
in error. The assignment of error Is
broad enough to raise the question, not
only as to the sutilciency of notice.
but as to the validity of such 5udg-
ment against nonresident. BY filing
a counter claim the contractor makes
n fFQn n nt IN
lien upon the lots. but the personal
liability Of the lot owners. Thus nom
resident simply because he was the
owner of property upon n street In
city In the State of Iowa, finds himself
by the provision of the State statute.
and without the service of any process
upon him. laid under personal obliga-
Aon to pay a tax assessed by the Com
mon Council or by the Board of Pub
lie Works and City Engineer under the
statute. upon his property abuttng
upon the street. for the purpose of
the street. which expenses are greater
than the benefit the lots have received
by virtue of the Improvement.
In this case no question arises with
regard to the validity of personal
Judgment like the one herein against
resident OF the State of Iowa, and we
therefore express no opinion upon that
subject. This plaintiff was at all times
q non resident of that State. and we
think that n statute authorizing an as
sessment to be levied upon property for
Il local improvement, and imposing
upon the lot owner, who is n nom
resident of the State, Il personal liza
bility TO pay such assessment, Is
statute, which the State has no power
to enact, and which cannot therefore.
furnish any foundation for personal
claim against such nonresident. There
is no course of reasoning as to the
character of an assessment upon lots
for n local Improvement by which it
can be shown that any jurisdiction to
collect the assessment personally from
n nonresident can exist. The State
may provide for the sale of the prop
erty upon which the assessment is laid,
but 1t cannot under any Guise or pre-
tense proceed further, and impose
personal liability upon n nonresident
to pay the assessment or any part of
1t. To enforce an assessment of such
n nature against n resident, so far
rs his personal liability is concerned,
would amount to the taking of proper
ty without due process of law, and
would be a. violation of the Federal
Constitution.
a judgment without personal service
against IL nonresident is only good so
far as 1t affects the property which is
taken or brought under the control of
the court or other tribunal in an ordi-
nary action to enforce a personal liza
bility. and no jurisdiction is thereby ac-
quired over the person of n non-resi-
dent further than respects the property
taken. This Is as true in the case OF
an assessment against a nonresident,
of such a nature as this one. as in the
case OF a more formal judgment.
The statute upon which the right to
enter this personal judgment depends
being as to the nonresident lot owner
an Illegal enactment, it follows that
the judgment should and must be
amended by striking out the provision
for such personal liability. Reversed
MISSOITEI Il G. II Nv 90 Y HIN