The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1902-03-22
U. S. COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION
IN PAVING CASE.
JUDGE SPEER so HOLDS.
THE CITY's PLEA IN ABATEMENT
is OVERRULED.

Case-AIleged Damages to Prop
erty Counted in to Give Federal
Courts Jurisdiction.
Judge Speer has sustained the juris-
diction of the United States Circuit
Court to try the case of George w.
Owens and others against the Mayor
and Aldermen of Savannah. This is the
now famous CASTOR street paving case,
bout which so much has been written
and said.
The decision in effect was upon the
demurrer of the property owners to the
plea in abatement, attacking the jur
isdiction of the court, but in terms it
goes far beyond this point and dis
cusses many other elements involved
in the case. Judge Speer declares the
facts SHOW an abuse or discharged of
the law, resulting in actual deprecia-
ton of property, which justifies an APP
plication for relief to a court of equity"
1t is acknowledged by the property
owners, the compliments in the case
that in order to confer jurisdiction up
on the United States courts amount
in issue must be as. much as $1,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, and
that the claims of several property
owners cannot be consolidated in order
to confer jurisdiction. These are re-
quirenlents of the law on the subject.
The City's Claim.
1t was contended on behalf of the
city, and on this contention the plea
in abatement was based, that no one
of the property owners, under the
terms of the ordinance, could be re-
quired to pay more than $500, and
that therefore the jurisdictional
amount was not present and the suit
must be dismissed from the Circuit
Court and the compliments remanded
for their remedy in the courts of the
state.
The property owners answer to this
was that in addition to the amount
they would be required to pay for as
sessments, they would suffer special
loss in the diminution of the value of
their property, amounting in some
cases to $4,000.
The city answered that the alleged
damages to the property could not
properly be considered in estimating
the amount at issue, as the constitu-
tional inhibition was against the
taking of property without due pro-
cess of law and not against it's dam
aging" This was the special point at
issue and the one primarily deter
mined by the decision of Judge Speer.
Jurisdiction the Issue.
The decision does not determine, i'll
it's legal effect, anything more than the
jurisdiction of the United States
Courts to try the case, The next step
will be the trial of the case on its mer-
II I,,I0I
the next term of the court. Judge
Speer's decision was. in part as fol-
lows:
The subject of the controversy be-
fore the court is an ordinance of the
city Of Savannah providing for the re-
pavement of CASTOR street. The object
sought by the bill is to have the court
declare said ordinance void and to en-
join the city from collecting assess
ments made under it's authority. If
the ordinance is legal, then this court
has no further concern with it. If it
is illegal the amount in controversy is
the extent of the injury to be prevent
ed by the injunction sought This in
the case of G.. w. Owens, as appears
from the BILL is damage to his proper
ty in the sum of $2,500 In the cases of
other compliments the damage alleged
is also more than the sum necessary
II.
1T is insisted in the plea that the
amount in controversy is the amount
of the assessment made by the city
against each property owner; that this
Will in no case exceed $500, and that
the damages which may flow from the
paving of said street cannot be COM
bined with the assessment in order to
give the Circuit Court jurisdiction. This
contention does not seem to be main
,iC Sc.
and the court must look to the injury
to be prevented. If the ordinance is
Illegal and its operation enjoined bv
the court, the wrong prevented is the
unlawful taking of the property of G.
w. Owens and others to an amount in
excess of $4,000, exclusive of interest
and costs.
Effect on the Property Owners
THE result of the alleged illegal or
dlnance, as appears from the bill. is to
assess against said complainants not
only thirds of the cost of repay-
ing, but to practically compel them TO
contribute for the public use the addi
tional amounts they will be severaIly
damaged by such repaving. For illus
tratlon, the Mayor and Aldermen have
determined that this street shall be
paved with vitrified brick, and that the
special benefit resulting to G. w. Ow
ems, taxing his case as typical of the
others, is such that he should contrib
ute towards it's cost $780, According to
the allegations of the bill, however
the paving of said street with brick.
as contemplated by the ordinance. will
not only not specially benefit said Ow
ems. but will not benefit him at all.
and will, in fact, deprive him of 81. 500
of his property in order that the public
may have the benefit of said paved
street, II indeed, any benefit is to be
derived from such requirement. If the
ordinance is illegal the practical eff
feet, so far as Owens is concerned. is
an assessment against his property of
$500 If Owens has real estate front
ing on CASTOR street of the value of
$4,000, and if, after the paving is laid.
the property is by reason of such paw
ing decreased in value $500, he has
contributed $2,5OO of his property in
such real estate in order that the pub
lie may have a thoroughfare.
The argument of the learned coun-
sci for the city was placed almost
exclusively upon the alleged INSULT
cheney of the amount in controversy
to give jurisdiction. The plea, how
ever, is more comprehensive, and ne
cessitates a consideration of the cues
ton whether the ordinance of the citv
of Savannah is unconstitutional, as in
sisted by the compliments"
The City's Authority.
Judge Speer then discussed the act
of the Legislature giving the city coun
ell authority to require property own
org IN Goa, tribsrto fo tho