Source: http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DLMNHFHPUK3ADNE
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 07:00:48+00:00

Document:
A statute of Texas (Rev.Civ.Stats. 1911, c. 11, Arts. 1006-1007) empowered the City of Olney to lay sidewalks and to assess the cost against abutting property and owners. The city ordered the construction of sidewalks in front of four lots owned by plaintiff in error. An ordinance was passed making the cost of sidewalks a lien against abutting property, and providing for 20 days’ notice to the owner, before charging such cost personally against him or as a lien upon his property. Plaintiff in error was given notice in compliance with the statute and ordinance. He failed to appear or make objection to the assessment.
The justice of the peace gave judgment in favor of plaintiff in error. The city appealed to the county court. At the trial, it offered the assessment certificate in evidence and rested. Plaintiff in error offered to prove that no ordinance had been passed relative to the laying of this particular sidewalk, that he received the notice to appear, and went to the meeting place of the city council, and that the council had adjourned. He did not offer to prove any fact excusing his failure to appear before adjournment, or that he was denied a hearing. The county court found for the city. Its order denying a motion for a new trial recites that it is the highest appellate court to which the cause can be taken in the State of Texas, because the amount involved is less than $100. The county judge allowed a writ of error bringing the case here.
The judgment of that court necessarily determines that the state laws were complied with. Unless a federal right is involved, the state court’s application of local laws will not be reviewed here. Hallinger v. Davis, 146 U.S. 314, 319; Peters v. Broward, 222 U.S. 483, 492; Armour Packing Co. v. Lacy, 200 U.S. 226, 234; Wade v. Travis County, 174 U.S. 499, 508; Osborne v. Florida, 164 U.S. 650, 654; Bardon v. Land & River Improvement Co., 157 U.S. 327, 331; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U.S. 22, 32-33. Plaintiff in error had opportunity to be heard before the city council, and was allowed a reasonable time after the assessment to bring suit to set it aside or to correct it or any proceeding with reference thereto. He failed to avail himself of the rights so given him by state laws. Their validity was not drawn in question. His claim that he was denied due process of law is not even colorable. Valley Farms Co. v. County of Westchester, 261 U.S. 155; Withnell v. Ruecking Construction Co., 249 U.S. 63, 69; Hibben v. Smith, 191 U.S. 310, 321; French v. Barber Asphalt Co., 181 U.S. 324, 334, 344, and cases cited. There is no federal question in the case.
Chicago: Butler, "Butler, J., Lead Opinion," Campbell v. Olney, 262 U.S. 352 (1923) in 262 U.S. 352 262 U.S. 353–262 U.S. 354. Original Sources, accessed April 20, 2019, http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DLMNHFHPUK3ADNE.
MLA: Butler. "Butler, J., Lead Opinion." Campbell v. Olney, 262 U.S. 352 (1923), in 262 U.S. 352, pp. 262 U.S. 353–262 U.S. 354. Original Sources. 20 Apr. 2019. www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DLMNHFHPUK3ADNE.
Harvard: Butler, 'Butler, J., Lead Opinion' in Campbell v. Olney, 262 U.S. 352 (1923). cited in 1923, 262 U.S. 352, pp.262 U.S. 353–262 U.S. 354. Original Sources, retrieved 20 April 2019, from http://www.originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DLMNHFHPUK3ADNE.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.