Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-03-11
JUSTICE HOLMES OPINION
Rest of the Court Concur in General
Conclusions.
OF CLAIMANTS
All tho Property on That Place Al
fected and Possibly Other
Special Assessments.

The Supreme Court Of the United States
today reversed the Court OF Appeals of the
District Of Columbia In the two cases of
clarence A. Brandenburg agt. the District
OF Columbia, and Thomas r. Martin agt.
the District of Columbia, and held that the
assessment or benefits for the opening OF
newport place was irregular The opinion
was delivered by Mr.. Justice Holmes. tho
rest OF the court concurring in the general
conclusion. The cases affect all of the prop
erty located on Newport place and may DOS
sibiy affect other special assessments in
the city. Substantially all Of the property
holders in this square acquiesced I'm the as
sessment and paid the tax but Mr.. Bran
uehourg declined for the reasons hereinaf-
ter stated.
+ Facts in the Case.
The facts In this case are that Clarence
"a brahdenburg was the owner of lots AZ
ana AZ, In square 90. which is located be-
tween list and 22d streets and and 0
northwest. These two lots abutted a little
more than forty feet on a thirty-foot pub
lie alley running east and west in that
square. The Commissioners of the District
pursuant to the act of Congress approved
July y. 1892. authorizing the opening and
extending OF alleys. upon the request of the
owners OF more than one-half of the land
In said square. proceeded to have the mar
shall for the District summon jury to con-
demn the land necessary for the opening of
minor street in that square, TO be known
as Newport place, by the widening Of this
thirty-foot alley to the width of sixty feet
and the extension of the same bv that
width through the square from 21st to
22d street
The jury was duly impaneled and on
March IL, 1893. made its award and find
Ing. whereby they undertook to condemn
Tor the purposes of said street a part of
these lots fronting upon the proposed street
oy depth of fifteen feet or one-ffth of tho
total area of the lot. This Jury allowed
Tor the value Of the land thus taken 25
cents foot, and charged I'D as benefits
against the remainder OF said lots a tax
or approximately 81 900. which was at the
rate of % cents per foot.
Contention Of Complainants.
petition for a writ Of certIorari was
Med by Attorneys Brandenburg K Brand
enburg, pursuant to which the Commission
ers made their return. whereupon these at
torneys moved to quash this return and for
a Judgment canceling the taxes. The court
below overruled the motion and dismissed
the petition. The case was then taken to
the Court of Appeals and that court sus-
tanned the lower court and held that the
act was constitutional.
In the Supreme Court it was contended
'itaS tue ACT was uncOnBt1tutfOnal, In that
while it authorized the Commissioner 10
condemn. open. extend and widen alleys.
which was by later act extended to the
opening OF minor streets 1t was un-
constitutional because 1t provided for the
taking OF private property for public use
without just compensation and without
due process of law. in that 1t provided for
the apportionment Of the total amount
OF the damages awarded for the land con-
demned. with the expenses Of the pro-
ceedings added. among the lots in the
square, without regard to the actual ben
eft or whether those lots were actually
benefited to the extent Of the damages
thus assessed. The other ground urged
against the constitutionality of the law
was that the law limited the area Of as
sessment Of benefits to such particular
square, without reference to the benefits to
adjacent squares and without regard to the
fact that the actual benefits may not equal
the total costs of the improvements.
The case of Martin agt. the District OF
Columbia was based upon the same prop
erty, and because of Irregularities in the
condemnation proceedings was likewise re-
versed by the Supreme Court of the United
States.