Mitchell v. Reichelderfer, 5274.

Citation61 App. DC 50,57 F.2d 416
Decision Date23 February 1932
Docket NumberNo. 5274.,5274.
PartiesMITCHELL et al. v. REICHELDERFER et al., Commissioners of District of Columbia.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Fred B. Rhodes and Marcus Borchardt, both of Washington, D. C., for appellants.

William W. Bride and Vernon E. West, both of Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the lower court ratifying and confirming the verdict of a jury in a condemnation case.

On May 13, 1928, the commissioners of the District of Columbia filed a petition under the provisions of subchapter 1 of chapter 15 of the Code of Laws for the District of Columbia (D. C. Code 1929, T. 25, § 52 et seq.), seeking the condemnation of land for the extension of Irving street between Eighteenth and Twentieth Streets Northeast, and for the widening of Eighteenth street between Irving and Jackson Streets Northeast.

Among the lands sought to be condemned were two tracts belonging, respectively, to Lloyd H. Van Kirk and Guy V. Collins. Notice of the proceeding was served personally upon them as required by section 491c of the D. C. Code (D. C. Code 1929, T. 25, § 54).

Public notice also was regularly given of the proceeding by advertisement in three daily newspapers published in the District, warning and requiring "all persons having any interest in the proceeding" to appear in court at a day named in the notice, and to continue in attendance until the court shall have made its final order ratifying and confirming the award of damages and the assessment of benefits by the jury as provided by the act.

A lawful jury was then impaneled, sworn, and instructed by the court, and, after viewing the premises and hearing testimony, the jury on December 9, 1929, returned its verdict awarding damages for the lands taken, and assessing certain amounts against various parcels of land for benefits from the improvement.

On December 28, 1929, Van Kirk and Collins, being the only appellants whose lands were taken by condemnation, filed objections and exceptions to the verdict of the jury, both as to the amount of the damages allowed for the lands taken and as to the assessments for benefits levied against other lands owned by them. These objections and exceptions were overruled by the court on April 4, 1930.

On April 10, 1930, the court, in conformity with the Act of Congress of May 29, 1928, 45 Stat. 953 (D. C. Code 1929, T. 25, § 71), gave lawful notice to the owners of lands which were assessed for benefits, of the amount of such assessments, and ordered "that objections or exceptions to said verdict of property owners assessed for benefits (no part of whose land was condemned in this proceeding) be filed in said cause on or before the 25th day of April, 1930."

Thereupon on April 24 and 25, 1930, appellants Touey, Demas, and Mitchell, who were not owners of any land taken by the condemnation but owned lands which were assessed for benefits, filed their respective objections and exceptions to the assessments found by the jury. The court, however, overruled all objections and exceptions respecting benefits charged against the several tracts owned by appellants, and ratified and confirmed the verdict. These appeals were then taken.

Two propositions are urged by appellants in support of their appeal: First, a claim that appellants were entitled to have their objections on the question of benefits heard by the condemnation jury; and, second, that the amounts assessed as benefits were excessive and not commensurate with the actual benefits to their properties.

The first of these claims is not sustained by the law. The mere filing of objections and exceptions to the verdict of a condemnation jury does not entitle a property owner to reopen and retry the case to the same or another jury. The procedure in relation to such complaints is governed by section 491h of the D. C. Code (D. C. Code 1929, T. 25, § 59), which provides as follows: "The said court shall hear and determine any objections or exceptions that may be filed to any verdict of the jury and shall have power to vacate and set any verdict aside, in whole or in part, when satisfied that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Federal Communications Commission v. Wjr, the Goodwill Station
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 6 Junio 1949
    ...U.S. 468, 481, 56 S.Ct. 906, 911, 80 L.Ed. 1288. See also Johnson & Wimsatt v. Hazen, 69 App.D.C. 151, 99 F.2d 384; Mitchell v. Reichelderfer, 61 App.D.C. 50, 57 F.2d 416. The decisions cited are sufficient to show that the broad generalization made by the Court of Appeals is not the law. R......
  • LB Wilson, Inc. v. Federal Communications Com'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 12 Abril 1948
    ...at page 481, 56 S.Ct. 906, 80 L.Ed. 1288. See also Johnson & Wimsatt v. Hazen, 1938, 69 App.D.C. 151, 99 F.2d 384; Mitchell v. Reichelderfer, 1932, 61 App.D.C. 50, 57 F.2d 416. 4 Londoner v. Denver, 1908, 210 U.S. 373, 28 S.Ct. 708, 52 L.Ed. ...
  • Continental Bank v. National City Bank
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 15 Septiembre 1965
    ...298 U.S. 468, 481 56 S.Ct. 906, 80 L.Ed. 1288. See also Johnson & Wimsatt v. Hazen, 69 App.D.C. 151, 99 F.2d 384; Mitchell v. Reichelderfer, 61 App.D.C. 50, 57 F.2d 416. "The decisions cited are sufficient to show that the broad generalization made by the Court of Appeals is not the law. Ra......
  • McGraw Electric Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 19 Marzo 1954
    ...U.S. 468, 481, 56 S.Ct. 906, 911, 80 L.Ed. 1288. See also Johnson & Wimsatt v. Hazen, 69 App.D.C. 151, 99 F.2d 384; Mitchell v. Reichelderfer, 61 App.D.C. 50, 57 F.2d 416." See, also, Sisto v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 31, 179 F.2d As no statute or rule demands it, and proced......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT