The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-07-24

were founded Ia not applicable to the
| case now before us. In the opinion of
| this court. in Whitman VS.. Reading, 169
| Pa. 375, the "foot-front" rule is sus-
| tained. as being, upon the whole, as
good a general rule as can be found.
our brother Mitchell there saying:
| The learned Judge below held that the
| 'foot-front' rule could not be lawfully
| applied as n method of assessment to
| the complainants property, and based
| his conclusions mainly, IL not exclus-
lively. on the difference in value per
foot front of the property along the
| line of the sewer. From this result we
| are constrained to differ.
while the FOOT rule of as
| sessment, IL Is true. does not express a
principle of taxation, but merely con-
venient method, yet its foundation is
not in uniformity of value, but In uni
| formity of benefit. The latter is not
| always, and perhaps not even really
| dependent upon the former or in any
| fixed ratio to 1t. Properties In the same
general situation are presumed to get
| the same general benefit from the given
| Improvement, and as this benefit is as
| sessed exclusively on property abut-
| ting on the line of the improvement, it
| is presumed to be fairly measured by
the foot frontage of the property on
that line, though values may be, and
usually are, very different and depend
| cnt upon other circumstances, such as
the depth of the lots, etc"
TAXATION NOT EQUAL.
| He then quotes from Judge Shars-
wood in Hammett VS.. Philadelphia 90
Pa. 1i6: mo system of taxation which
the wit of man has ever devised has
| been found perfectly equal" but, per
haps no fairer rule can be adopted than
| the proportion of feet front. though
| there must be some inequalities, If the
| lots differ in situation and depth"
| Further reference Is made to Wash
| ington avenue. so Pa. 36l where Chief
| Justice Agnew says of the per foot =
| 'front.' mode of assessment: Whatever
| doubt may have been originally enter
| tanned of ii as a substitute, which ii
really Is, for actual assessment by
| Jurors or assessors under oath, 1t has
| been so often sanctioned by decision. il
would i'll become US now to unsettle its
foundation by disputing its principle. -
No authority for setting aside the
| "foot-front' rule can, therefore, be
found in Wilman VS.. Reading,
1t is true that the method Of assess
| ing the cost Of the system of sewers
| which was under consideration in that
case, was disapproved But this was
for the reason that the ratio of cost
was made up by aggregatng the cost
| of local and main sewers, so that the
| average of these was not an accurate
measure of any one of them.
| This mode of procedure was ConSid-
cred 10 be in conflict with the prin-
ciple that no properties can be assessed
| for the cost of sewer, except those
that abut on the line thereof Upon this
reasoning the conclusion as set forth
was reached in Whitman vs.. Reading.
PROCEEDINGS ORDERLY.
In the case now under consideration
the whole procedure seems to have beer
an orderly one. conducted from begin.
ming 10 end in accordance with tho
terms of the Act of Assembly of May
%. 1889 The initial step was a petition
| by a ma jOlity of the abuttrg prOpcrt \
owners. This was followed by the en-
aCtment Of an ordinance of the city
councils. authorizing the work tO be
done, under the direction of the city
| engineer. and according to plans anC
| specifications. The city engineer was
instructed to make the assessments foi
the cost of the paving according to the
foot front rule, against the abuttins
owners. giving notice to said owners as
required by law. The work was ad.
mittedly done in accordance with The
contract and the specifications. The
city engineer made the assessment IN
strict accordance with the law. and. as
a result, the property of the appellee
was assessed in the sum Of S2S6. thaI
amount being in proportion to III,
number of feet which his property
fronts upon the street, The iurisdiC
ton Of the city authorities, under The
admitted facts of this case. cannot h,
questioned, and there being no allcca
tion of fraud or defective Workmanship
or mistake in tho computation of tn,
engineer. the assessment must he re
gardod as conclusive.