Evening star., 1900-04-26
DECISION REVERSED
Court of Appeals Passes Upon Street
Extension Case.
ACT HELD TO Be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Order Confirming the Eleventh
Street Award Withheld.
ACTION OF COMMISSIONER

The decision of the lower court in the
case of Chas. H. Davidson. Albert A. Wilson
and John B. I.arner, trustees. appellants.
against the District of Columbia. in the
matter of the extension of S street, 22d
street and Decatur street. has been re-
yersed by the Court of Appeals. The opin-
Ion written by Mr.. Justice Morris
The trustees named appealed from an order
that confirmed an assessment upon lands
for alleged benefits accruing from opening
of streets adjoining such lands.
1t was couteuded that the act of Congress
under which the proceedings We're had was
unconstitutional. and that notice given
the appellants in respect of assessments
Ip1n their property was not sufficient. The
Court of Appeals holds that there was err
Tor in the confirmation of the awards ana
the findings of the jury whlch were NOT
warranted by law.
In its verdict the jury sitting in the tore
going case found the value OF the properly
to be taken, being abou. ~ ~ square lett,
to be of the value of S52,Wbo ana assessor
that sum as the amount Of damages to be
paid as compensation TO the owners Al
the same time they assessed dement's 10 tne
amount of $4,000 on adjacent lots. pom
this return of the marshal and verdict OF
the Jury the court. September IL last. en-
tered an order of confirmation nisi, direct
ing that the verdict, award and assessment
should stand confirmed, unless cause To tne
contrary be shown on or before october /
last
The appellants came in and filed excep-
tions to the confirmation of the award and
finding of the jury. The grounds Of OBJ
lection were that the statute did not war
rant any assessment against the Kali
tract; that the statute was Observation-Disclosures
al inaSmuCh it provided for no adequate
notice to the persons to be assessed; that
the statute under which the assessment
was made provided for condemnations only.
and not for assessments: that the act of
March z 1889 taken in connection with the
nrnI-fsi,ns of the Revised Statutes urder
which the proceedings were mad is incon-
sistznr and incauahIe of enforcement as to
sSSelImanfs for bena4i1s. fhat The descrip-
ton of the property sought to be charged
with the assessments was defective. ana
that the award Vas excessive. unjust anu
bat ,,, i,,r,. lbo,,Id he innanaaJ in ac
cordance with section ~; Of the Revised
Statutes Of the United States relating TO the
District of Columbia
E~..,+;.,s Oxarru,.d
49,, e,,,.,..,..
Ihe eAc"puohS TO the a"aru anu lihuihsS
of the jury were oyerruled. and the court
ratified and confirmed the verdict. award
and ,ssass,rapr From, tho order Of ratifi-
- - -. -, - ,.,.l,,.,I
't.i'" 'ie ~ S'ii' "pl'V'i q ~
The principal questions raised by the as
signments Of error We're two-first. that of
the coHStituti1uality Of the act of Congress
under Wn1C n the proceedings mad Deen ndu.
and. second. that of the suficiency of the
notice given to the appellants in respect of
tn- assessments Uupu their property
With respect to the first of the questions
the Court Of Appeals explains that 1t has
heen cuncIusively determined by the deci-
sion Of the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case of Norwood against Ia
ker in connection with which Justice Har-
Ian said: In our Judgment the exactiOn
from the owner of private property of the
cost of a public Improvement in substah-
tial excess Of the special benefits accruins
10 him is. to the extent of such excess, a
taking under the guiSe of taxation of prt-
vate property for public use without com
pensatiOn.
Affecting Benefits.
The rrIrcfnIa laid fourr in tho case
,,,-.+o,z - =. ~. -. ,.sos,a
. '4idt lHe value Oh the spetlal oeheht 10
the adjacent property from the public i'm
prOyement and not the cost of the i'm
prnvernenr or any mart Of vucb coe. os
-,,t B. ~, I,-st+I,3 - -, a.
sHSi', tS tLte l4iiiitdtiol VI assessment upo-l
'i!S pioPeLt!'
4T 80 OK AppeaIS atso taxes 'le
'ttS1L tItetS "ao no uue PioctS9 u
ren- ae,ainst the nr|rartT ~ ~, aIaIIs+s
80 itttp p "a sile app
out opportunity on their part 10 be heard
in regard to it, such as they We're entitled
10 haSe-
snnaIiapts or aIs 70 put t;a tne
-fl.
eording to the Court of Appeals. Neither
the appellants nor any other owner of
~ ip2i iio9u couIu zen with
to be assesse5 rbtra y,ias No ~ tiS y IA a.
trict fixed by the statute Whether any
such taxing district could arbitrarily hava
been fixed in view Of the decision in Tor-
wood against Baker the Court of Arrea l.
holds thai II need not determine
There is nothing in the stafufn IN i,,stifv
the omission of the ordinary nersonsI NO.
tice nor was there ANYTHING in the cir.
cl1rnstanc4s nf the ca.a ~ T,t7rra,. =. "a
cording to the Court of Annaa1s - ="
Summing m the Court ~ Anrea1e sa,--
From what we have said it foIIoy,S IN
our opinion that there was arrnr in ,bs
order or decree Of f,,narn,atfnr or ~
award and findings nf the iIIrI- in tbis ,osa
and that. as against tba 9nTeiiants -
award and findings v,.re r,C,t ,,,arra,1,5 -
law Tho order or dac-aa .,,,I[ai-., - -
will therefore, he as 10 tI1o - ] - - y, n
and tbs cnuse p,iII h -.,ii o+iei ~. eIHeu ss
nren,a conr+ oS ~ nf4i-. ~ ~ She 2u-
aa,.L AZ VI 1ie b4SEICt OF ColumDla
order or dacraa 81 - 70 1ilehl Such
tion nfsI ana ~ .I.,rI ~ VI I'a u coliiirfna
IurI,. a,lI - sb 81 'iiLu AiiIihss OF the
in ~ a+,t- q n.,. t - Procetullss there-
i.w artI 80 ;,, tii,'s ne proper accordlng tt
WIN 'ilS oPihloh-