Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-01-24
COURT DECISIONS {,
DicEsTED BY w. q. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virgln:an-Pllotl
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
CITY OF NORFOLK v. YOUNG,


Supreme Court of Appeals Of Virginia.
January Is, 1900.
LOCAL ASSESSMENTS MADE UNI
DER SECTION rs, OF THE CHAR
TER OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK,
ACTS OF 1854. ARE VOID, BEING
CONTRARY TO ARTICLE XIV. OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND DEPRIVE
ING PERSONS OF THEIR PROP
ERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW.
The question involved in this case
was the validity OF j paving assess
ment made by the city of Norfolk
against Young for his proportion OF
the paving of Plume street. The as
sessment was regularly made as re-
CURED by section g. OF the city charter,
acts 1884, and the only-point decided
was whether that section was in viola
ton of the 14th amendment of the Con-
stitution Of the United States.
The court says:
1t was held in the case of Violet ".
Alexandria. and may now be regarded
as the settled law of this State, that
local assessments by municipal cor
poratlons for street improvements are
an exercise of the taxing power of the
State: that Article XIV. of the amend
lnents of the Constitution of the United
States applies to assessments, and that
a law which authorizes them without
giving to the person of whom such as
sessment Is eSacted reasonable notice
and opportunity to appear and contest
the legality, justice and correctness of
the assessment, before it is finally de-
-tefFa4iHed- upon, aefs.iia.ias5- seeif personnel
his property without due process Of law
and is therefore, void. 1t was further
held. that due process OF law" requires
that a person shall have reasonable
notice and reasonable opportunity to
be heard before an Impartial tribunal,
before any final order can be made
affecting his rights or property, and
that such notice and opportunity must
be provided for in the laws under which
the assessment is made.
We do not think that the notice re-
Quired by that section was intended to
furnish the land -owncrs to be affected
an opportunity to contest the legality,
Justice or correctness of the assess
mcnt. The object of the provision was
manifesuy to enable the Councils to
get the benefit of the judgment or opin-
ion of the landowners to be affected as
TO the necessity or wisdom OF making
the improvement.
But IL the notice was intended to give
the persons to be affected an oppor-
tunity to contest the legality Justice
and correctness of the assessment I
do not think it was sufficient. The OBJ
ject of notice in such cases is to secure
to the owner the opportunity to pro-
tect himself or his property from an
illegal or erroneous assessment. In
n off = cl,
and clear enough to disclose to persons
of ordinary intelligence, in general
way what is proposed, and when and
where they may be heard
The notice required and given wholly
failed to designate q tribunal before
which. a place where, or n time when,
a party to be affected had the right to
appear to expose any alleged wrong in
the assessment imposed upon him or
his property.
Neither do we think that persons of
ordinary intelligence would have in
ferred from the notice required and
given that they had the right, even il
that be the law as appellants counsel
insists. to appear before the Town
Councils at one of their regular meet
ings and demand a hearing from them
In order that they might have wrong
done them redressed. Persons skilled
in the law might have advised such a
course. burt the notice which the law
requires eases
sons Of ordinary intelligence may I'M
derstand when, where and before whom
they have the right TO appear to pro-
tect themselves from illegal or erron-
eous assessments without being COM
PEELED to employ attorneys to determine
these questions for them.
l am Of opinion that there is no error
IN the decree appealed from and that
it should be affirmed.