Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-04-09
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for -Prot.)
MEYER V. RICHMOND, &C.

MEYER V. RICHMOND, &C.
Supreme Court OF the United States,
December IS, 1895.
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES TO
PROPERTY BY AN OBSTRUCTION
IN a STREET DOES NOT COME
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION AGAINST DEPRIVING
a PERSON OF PROPERTY WITH
= OUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
This was an appeal from the Supreme
Court of Appeals or Virginia. Meyer
owned u lot on Eighth street, in the
city of Richmond, and brought this suit
against the city and the Chesapeake
d Ohio II. r. Co. for damages caused
his sud lot by reason of the obStruc-
ton on Eighth street, caused by the
tracks, sheds, fences, etc. of the rail-
road company, which were placed in
said street under an ordinance of the
city allowing the same. The obstruc-
TONS were not in front of his lot. The
plaintiff contended that the charter and
ordinance of Richmond was void as in
conflict with the Fourteenth Amend
mcnt to the Constitution of the United
States, which prohibits any state from
depriving any person of property with
out due process of law. The lower court
gave judgment for defendants, the SUI
premc Court of Appeals of Virginia re-
fused an appeal and the plaintiff APP
pealed To this court.
The court says:
The plaintiffs constitutional claim is
under the provision of the Fourteenth
Amendment, and he availS himself OF it
by the contention THAT under the con-
stitution and laws of Virginia. the free
ana uninterrupted use of highways,
once dedicated to and accepted by the
public are for continuous use.
ana that when relying upon that fact,
important public and private property
rights have been acquired. the highway
cannot be permanently diverted to n
private use without proper compensa-
non being made to those injured, and
as IL consequences. any person. or per-
sors. 50 diVer;ing such highway are
trospasscrs and liable in damages to the
party injured" The proposition is very
general. To make it available to plain
tiff 1t must he held to cover and pro-
tect an owner whose property abuts OH
ore part OF street from damage from
obstruction placed in another part of
the street and not opposite his prop
erty-not only Il physical taking of his
properly, but damages to it-not only
direct damage but consequential dam
ages. All Of these aspects of the pro-
position seem To be rejected by the de-
clsion OF tho Supreme Court of AD-
peals OF Virginia. The petition submit
ted for decision the mower of the city
obstruction under its charter, and the
Constitution and laws of Virginia. as
Well as the prohibition of the constitu-
ton Of the United STATES. If the de-
cision necessarily passed on and denied
the latter as we hold il did. it neccs-
sarlly passed on and denied the former
II under the constitution and laws of
virginia whatever dotriment was suf-
fcrcd was damnum absQue injuria he
cannot be said to have been deprived
OF his property.
Tho substantial thing is not that one
may be damaged by an obstruction i'm
street-not that one may be specially
damaged beyond othcrs-hut is such
damage deprivation of property with
In the meaning Of the constitutional
provision? According to the Virginia
cases an additional scrvitudc may be
SAD to be another physical appropriate
ton. and hence another taking and
must be compensated. But the plain
tiif's case is not within this doctrine
nor is there anything in the decisions OF
Virginia which makes consequential
the meaning of the constitution of that
state. Decisions OF other states we need
not resort To nor review. Those of this
court furnish a sufficient guide In
Northern Transportation Company "
Chicago it was decided chat acts done
in the proper exercise of governmental
power and not directly cncrOa ching on
private property, though their conse-
duences may impair its use. are univer-
sally held not TO be IL taking within
the meaning of the constitutional pro-
vision" Judgment affirmed