Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-04-29
$107,153 SOUGHT
IN LAND SEIZURE
Dr.. Anna B. Dunno Demands
Payment From Montgom-
cry County.
By stan correspondent of The s.ar.

ROCKVILLE. Md, April 29.-Alleg-
ing trespacs, breach of contract and
violation Of "due process clauses in
the Maryland and United States Con-
stitutions, DR.. Anna Bartsch Dunno
1900 Connecticut avenue, Wash ngton
filed suit in Circuit Court here this
morning against the Montgomery
County Commits. oners, asking Sl07,-
1898 damages for property taken in
the widening of Georgia avenue almost
three years ago.
DR.. Dunno gained considerable pub
licity during July, 1929, by living in
a tent on portion of the same plot
involved in the present litigation in
order to conform with the law requiring
re-entry, following the expiration of an
option. AT that time the dispute over
possession of the land was with the
Maryland Garage & Machine Co. DR..
Dunno won out.
Land Seizure Charged.
The present suit states that the
c mmiss.oners, exercising the power of
eminent domain. took possession of
| 17,592.l8 square feet at the southeast
corner of Georgia avenue and the
Colesville Pike, which belong to the
plaintiff, without condemnation pro-
ceedings or other proper procedure Of
any kind.
The land in question is now part of
the intersection of the two thorough
fares and is enc of the busiest corners
in Silver Spring.
The suit for breach Of contract al
leges that the County Commissioners
faithfully promised the plaintiff to
| pay her as much money as she reason
/ ably deserved to have when payment
/ should be requested
| Through her attorneys, Peter, Simp-
/ son and OXley of Rockville; Butler,
Lamb, Foster and Pope of Washington
and E. Barrett Prettyman, Kari D.
/ Loos and Preston King. also of Wash
! ington, the plaintiff states that she
reasonably deserved to have of the de-
! PENDANT the sum of $53576.54."
| Nevertheless" the declaration con-
| tinues, the defendant, not regarding
! its several promises and undertakings,
but contriving and fraudulently intend
| ing craftiy and subtly to deceive and
defraud the plaintiff in this behalf
/ hath not as yet paid the sum Of money
although requested so to do
Camped on Ground.
The suit sets June, 7, 1923, as the
| date the commissioners took possession
/ Of the land. 1t was just year and a
month later that DR.. Dunno camped
on the same corner to establish her
right to the remaining portion of her
! land against the Maryland Garage g.
! Machine Co.
The suit on the breach OF con-
tract is aimed against the county COM
missioners as a corporate body only,
| but the action in treSpasS names the
individual commissioners holding office
when the land was taken as well as the
present board as a whole.
The commissioners and former COM
missioners sought to be held individ-
ually liable are Robert L. Hickerson,
Downey Williams, Clagett c. Hilton,
Lacy Shaw and DIR. Benjamin c. Perry.
Mr. Hickerson and DR.. Perry no longer
hold Office.
Three Theories Advanced.
! The sction proceeds on three theories.
The first is that the action of the
county commissioners constituted TAX
ing of private property for public use
without due process of law, which is
prohibited by the constitutions of Mary
land and the United States; that their
failure to compensate DR.. Dunno for the
property violated an implied contract,
and that 1t was a trespass.
Lawyers for the plaintiff say that
they stand ready to take the case into
| the Supreme Court of the United States
in event of adverse decisions by Mary
land tribunals Tiley point out that
the constitutional question involved
would place the litigation in the pllr-
view of the Supreme Court.
The value set on the property by the
plaintiff is at the rate Of SO per square
foot.