Bauman v. Ross Ross v. Bauman Abbot v. Ross Ross v. Armes
Citation | 42 L.Ed. 270,17 S.Ct. 966,167 U.S. 548 |
Decision Date | 10 May 1897 |
Docket Number | Nos. 631,633,634,632,s. 631 |
Parties | BAUMAN et al. v. ROSS et al. ROSS et al. v. BAUMAN et al. ABBOT v. ROSS et al. ROSS et al. v. ARMES et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 548-549 intentionally omitted] A. S. Worthington, for Ross and others.
Nathaniel Wilson and Chapin Brown, for Bauman and others.
W. L. Coles, for Armes and others.
The original plan of the city of Washington, established in 1791, under the direction of President Washington, and by authority of congress, with its symmetrical arrangements of squares and lots, streets, avenues, circles, and public reservations, did not extend north of Boundary street, or affect the roads and highways in the rest of the District of Columbia.
By an act of 1809, the proprietor of any lot or square in the city of Washington was authorized to have it subdivided upon submitting a plat thereof to the surveyor of the District of Columbia, to be certified and recorded in his office, upon his being satisfied that its dimensions corresponded with the original lots. Act Jan. 12, 1809, c. 8 (2 Stat. 511); Rev. St. D. C. §§ 477-481.
At a comparatively recent period, owners of lands outside the northern boundary of the city of Washington from time to time laid out streets over their lands, and made and recorded subdivisions thereof, as they pleased, often not conforming to each other, or to the general plan of the city of Washington; and congress at last found it necessary to take measures to have the streets throughout the District of Columbia laid out upon a uniform plan.
Congress accordingly, by the act of August 27, 1888 (chapter 916), entitled 'An act to regulate the subdivision of land within the District of Columbia,' authorized the commissioners of the District of Columbia to make and publish general orders regulating the platting and subdividing of all lands and grounds in the District, and required any plat of subdivision made in pursuance of such orders to be approved by them before being admitted to record in the office of the surveyor, and, in section 5, provided that 'no future subdivision of land in the District of Columbia, without the limits of the cities of Washington and Georgetown, shall be recorded in the surveyor's office of the said District, unless made in conformity with the general plan of the city of Washington.' 25 Stat. 451; Comp. St. D. C. c. 58, §§ 39-43.
It was in order the more completely to carry out the same object, that congress passed the act of March 2, 1893 (chapter 197), entitled 'An act to provide a permanent system of highways in that part of the District of Columbia lying outside of cities,' the constitutionality of which is now impugned. 27 Stat. 532.
The parts of the act chiefly attacked are sections 11 and 15. But the record discloses such differences of opinion in the courts below, and the solution of the questions involved depends so much upon a view of the act as a whole, that it will be convenient to state its various provisions somewhat fully.
The first five sections of the act relate to the making, the recording, and the effect of plans for the extension of a permanent system of highways, in conformity, as nearly as practicable, with the general plan of the city of Washington, over all that part of the District of Columbia which lies outside the cities of Washington and Georgetown.
The act begins by enacting that
By section 2, of August 27, 1888 (chapter 916), 'or which shall, in the opinion of the commissioners, conform to the general plan of the city of Washington.' A copy of such map, duly certified by the commissioners, is to be delivered to a commission created by this act, composed of the secretary of war, the secretary of the interior, and the chief of engineers, for the time being, who may adopt or alter it, or make a new map instead; and the map which that commission shall adopt and approve in writing is to be delivered to the commissioners of the District of Columbia, and be at once filed and recorded in the office of the surveyor of the District of Columbia.
The same section proceeds:
The section concludes with a provision that the commissioners of the District of Columbia, 'in order to enable the said commissioners to proceed speedily and efficiently to carry out the purposes of this act,' may, with the approval of the commission before named, appoint two civilian assistants to the engineer commissioner, who, with him, under the direction of the commissioners, shall have immediate charge of the work to be done under this act.
Section 3 provides that, 'when any such map shall have been recorded as aforesaid in the office of the surveyor of the district, it shall be lawful for the owner of any land included within such map to adopt the subdivision, thereby made, by a reference thereto and to this section in any deed or will which he shall thereafter make; and when any deed or will containing any such reference shall have been made and recorded in the proper office, it shall have the same effect as though the grantor or grantors in such deed, or the maker of such will, had made such subdivision and recorded the same in compliance with law.'
By section 4, 'for the purpose of making surveys for such plans and maps, the commissioners, and their agents and employees necessarily engaged in making such surveys, are authorized to enter upon any lands through or on which any projected highway or reservation may run or lie.' And by section 5, 'the commissioners of the District of Columbia are authorized to name all streets, avenues, alleys and reservations laid out or adopted under the provisions of this act.'
Then follow sections 6 to 14, inclusive, containing provisions for the condemnation of a permanent right of way for the public, and for the assessment of compensation or damages to the owners of lands by a jury of seven men, as follows:
By section 6, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Crary
...281, 65 L. Ed. 566; U. S. v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U. S. 53, 76, 33 S. Ct. 667, 57 L. Ed. 1063; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, 587, 17 S. Ct. 966, 42 L. Ed. 270; Monongahala Navigation Co. v. U. S., 148 U. S. 312, 341, 13 S. Ct. 622, 37 L. Ed. 463; R. & M. Railroad Co. v. Hum......
-
United States v. 70.39 Acres of Land
...and the notes contained therein. "There is no constitutional right to a jury trial in a condemnation proceeding. Bauman v. Ross, 1897, 167 U.S. 548, 17 S.Ct. 966, 42 L.Ed. 270. See, also, Hines. Does the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States require Jury Trials in all C......
-
Sebastian Bridge Dist. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
... ... damaged (Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548, 17 Sup.Ct ... 966, 42 ... ...
-
Long v. State
...of, and no more. To award him less would be unjust to him; to award him more would be unjust to the public. Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548, 574, 17 S.Ct. 966, 976, 42 L.Ed. 270 (1897) (emphasis added). By refusing to acknowledge that the compensation Landowners received from the City reduced ......
-
The Regulatory Takings Battleground: Environmental Regulation of Land Versus Private-Property Rights
...for property taken for the public use, under the right of eminent domain, is not required to be made by a jury,” Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548, 593 (1897) (citing, inter alia , Custiss v. Georgetown & Alexandria Turnpike Co., 10 U.S. 233 (1810); United States v. Jones, 109 U.S. 513 (1883); a......
-
Resilience and Raisins: Partial Takings and Coastal Climate Change Adaptation
...Annotation, Deduction of Beneits in Determining Compensation or Damages in Eminent Domain , 145 A.L.R. 7 (1945); Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548, 562 (1897). 35. See, e.g. , Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Karan, 70 A.3d 524, 536 (N.J. 2013). 36. 3-8A Nichols, supra note 27, §8A.02. 37. See, e.g. ......
-
THE OPENING OF A PANDORA'S BOX: HOW SPORTS TEAMS EXPLOIT THE BROAD READING OF KELO TO DEVELOP SPORTS STADIUMS.
...at 521. (139.) Typically, the courts have ruled that "just compensation" means the fair market value of the property. See Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548, 569-70 (1897); see also Kirby Forest Indus., Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1, 9-10 (140.) Kelo, 545 U.S. at 501 (O'Connor, J., dissenting......
-
THE COMPENSATION CONSTRAINT AND THE SCOPE OF THE TAKINGS CLAUSE.
...Takings, 117 COLUM. L. REV. 2043, 2049 (2017). (39) 4A SACKMAN, supra note 5, [section] 14A.03[1], at 14A-41 n.3. (40) Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S. 548, 557 (1897); 4A SACKMAN, supra note 5, [section] 14A.01[2], at (41) Bell & Parchomovsky, supra note 38, at 2056 -57. (42) See Borough of Ha......
-
Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1 Condemning Real Or Personal Property
...have begun to consider their verdict. There is no constitutional right to jury trial in a condemnation proceeding. Bauman v. Ross, 1897, 17 S.Ct. 966, 167 U.S. 548, 42 L.Ed. 270. See, also, Hines, Does the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Require Jury Trials in all......
-
28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 71.1 Condemning Real Or Personal Property
...have begun to consider their verdict. There is no constitutional right to jury trial in a condemnation proceeding. Bauman v. Ross, 1897, 17 S.Ct. 966, 167 U.S. 548, 42 L.Ed. 270. See, also, Hines, Does the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Require Jury Trials in all......