The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-06-25

overturned all previous precedents ) /
z pom the subject. 81
Following is the text of the supreme
courts opinion in b. NJ Hutcheson ct al
vs.. Robert c. Storrie. from Harris county, |
First district:
We omit many OF the facts OF this case
which are immAteral in considering the
questions presented TO this court. The
following are the material facts
Bette NJ. Hutchinson, wife OF j. c.
Hutcheson, owned in her separate right
block OF land containing about twenty
acres fronting Ga feet on the north side OF
the Harrisburg road and some other lots
upon the said road--all lying within the
limits OF the city OF Houston between the
international and Great Northern railroad
and the corporate line Of the city.
Al meeting OF the city council OF tho
city Of Houston. held on August 10. 1894,
the council adopted a resolution declaring
that the Improvement OF the Harrisburg
road from the international and Great
Northern railway tracks to the city limits
was a public necessity. The resolution
stated the different kinds of material OF
which the improvement might be made
and directed that bids for the work be
solicited. The third section of the reso-
luton Is IN the following language: The
cost OF constructing said improvements,
except as to street Intersections, together
with the cost of collecting thereof, shall.
as provided In section "a of the charter
Of said city, be wholly betrayed by the
owner OF the lot or lots block or blocks,
or tracts of land when not divided into
lots or blocks abuttng on said portion OF
said streets or avenues to be so improved,
aud said improvements shall be paid for
in five equal annual lnstallments." The
IN ya cd pnI 1,.s
the provisions of the charter and the city
engineer made specifications for the work
which were approved by the city council
and after due advertisement tho city
council entered into contract with r. c.
Storrie to make the Improvement ordered
The city engineer, in accordance with
the terms of the charter, made and filed a
roll OF ownership, upon which the property
OF Mrs. Hutcbeson was PLACED, ana the
cost Of the Improvement, according to
tue contract, was appurtioned to said
property by the front loot thereof, as re-
CURED by the charter TO be done. The
roll of ownership thus made out was filed
with the secretary OF the city. VINO gave
notice OF It's filing, as required by the
CHARTER, and there being no objection pre-
seuted on the part OF Mrs. Hutcheson, 1t
was approved BY The council and improve
ment certificates were ordered 10 be issued
10 X. Z, sturrle for the cost of the work,
when approved by the board OF public
works. X, c. Storrie did tho work ac-
eording to the contract ana the improve
ment certificates were issued and deliv-
cred to him Mrs, nutcheson having failed
TO pay the installments, this suit MAS hied
10 enforce their collection aud the district
court entered judgment roreclosng a lien
upon the property Tor the amount assessed,
except the correction OF some errors.
Mrs, Hutchesons property was situated
in part OF the city OF Houston waere
there were very few houses OF any kind
and most of them small and OF little
value. Much OF the property IN mat Vi
entity was used for pasturage and there
were no water mains or pipes, electric
lights or sewerage In that portion OF the
city. AS TO whether the value OF the prop
erty was equal to the amount assessed
upon II for the Improvement the testl-
mony was conflicting and the Issue not de-
termined by the court of oiyl appeals.
Mrs. Hutchinson offered evidence to show
that there were no special benefits derived
by her property from the improvements
made, which was excluded by the court
and there was no evidence that such benc-
fits did exist. The court of civil appeals
affirmed the judgment of the district court
from which Mrs, Hutcheson and her hus-
band have sued out this writ OF error.
plaintiffs in error present number OF
objections TO the judgment all based upon
the proposition that the charter Of the city
vi lAOuobuu, III 80 Lar as II authorizes TIE
city council to improve the streets at the
cost of AUDITING property without regard
to special benefits to the property, Is vo-
lative of sections II and 10 OF the consti-
tuition OF this State, which read as fol-
lows:
Section IT, No persons property shall
be taken, damaged or destroyed for or APP
piled to public use without adequate COM
pensation being made, unless by the con-
sent Of such person"
Section 10. No citizen OF this State
shall be deprived of life, liberty. property
privileges or immunties, or in any manner
DISTINGUISHED, except by due course of the
law of the land"
Also that 1t is in conflict with the follow
Ing provision of section l of the fourteenth
amendment to the constitution OF the
United States: Nor shall any State de-
priye any person Of life. liberty or prop
erty without due process of law, nor deny
to any person within its Jurisdiction the
equal protection OF the laws"
The court OF civil appeals followed strict
~ the case OF Adams Vs. Fisher, 70 Texas,
657 in which Judge Stayton said: THE
charter OF the city of Galveston gives TO
its council the legislative power % deter
mine whether such an Improvement viii
be for the public interest, and also TO deter
mine whether II will be of such benefit
10 property fronting on that particular
street to be improved as Will Justify the
imposition OF a part OF the costs OF the
Improvement on the owners OF such prop
erty, and It's determination OF this ques-
ton must be deemed conclusive" and, in
support OF the opinion. Judge Stayton
quoted from Ludlow VS.. Railway, rs KY,
$50. as follows: while assessments of
this character as distinguished from gem
eral taxation, rest upon the basis OF ben
ehtf or presumed benefits to the property
assessed, II Is not essential to their va