Charles v. City of Marion

Citation98 F. 166
Decision Date11 December 1899
Docket Number9,755.
PartiesCHARLES v. CITY OF MARION et al.
CourtD. Indiana

Miller Elam & Fesler, Honk & Ratliff, Marshal Frank, and Charles St John, for complainant.

G. A Henry, F. W. Sweazey, and Hawkins & Smith, for defendants.

BAKER District Judge.

The supreme court of this state has expressed no recent opinion upon the constitutionality of the statute (Burns' Rev St. 1894, Sec. 3626) providing that lot owners 'shall be liable to the city for their proportion of the costs of street and alley improvements in the ratio of the front line of their lots owned by them to the whole improved line of the street and alley improvements. ' Prior to the decision in Village of Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269, 19 Sup.Ct. 187, 43 L.Ed. 443, the supreme court of this state and of many other states had held that state legislation providing for an assessment of the costs of street and alley improvements by the measurement of the front line of the lots along and in front of which such improvements were made was valid. But in none of the cases decided by the supreme court of this state was prominence given to the question ruled in Village of Norwood v. Baker, supra. The principle there settled is that a property owner cannot be assessed, for the construction of a public street or alley, in excess of the amount of benefits conferred upon the property; and that such benefits are those only which are peculiar to the property, and do not embrace benefits derived from such public improvement by the landowner as one of the public at large. The statute of this state expressly provides for an assessment of the costs of a street improvement by the measurement of the front line of the lots along which the improvements are made, and makes no provision for an assessment on the basis of the benefits actually received by the property owner by the construction of such public improvements. The constitution of the United States, as well as of this state, forbids the taking of private property for public use, by taxation or otherwise, without just compensation; and, in the case of an assessment of benefits for street improvement, that just compensation consists in the benefits that the lot owners receive by reason of such public improvement. The statute provides that, when such improvement has been completed, the common council shall cause a final estimate of the total cost, to be made by the city engineer, and shall require such engineer to report, among other things, to the common council, the total cost of such improvement, the average cost per running front foot, the name of each property owner on that part of the street improved, the number of front feet owned by each of such property owners, and the amount of the cost for such improvement due upon such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Russell v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 31 Marzo 1975
    ...for determining the rights of the parties. 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law §§ 580-81, at 985-88 (1964). In the case of Charles v. City of Marion, 98 F. 166 (C.C.Ind.1899), we are told that it is essential to due process of law that there shall not only be notice of a time and place for a he......
  • Adams v. City of Shelbyville
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 27 Abril 1900
    ... ... Overman (Ohio St.), 61 Ohio St. 1, 55 N.E. 158, ... October 24, 1899, street pavement and sewer assessments ... against abutters; Charles v. City of Marion ... (C. C. Dist. Ind.), 98 F. 166, December 11, 1899, street ... paving assessments against abutters ... ...
  • Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 12 Febrero 1913
    ... ...           Appeal ... from Cape Girardeau Circuit Court. -- Hon. Charles B. Faris, ...           ... Affirmed ...          Giboney ... Houck and ... 249; Levee Co. v. Hardin, 27 Mo. 496; ... St. Louis v. Oeters, 36 Mo. 456; Kansas City v ... Ridenour, 84 Mo. 258; St. Joseph v. Anthony, 30 ... Mo. 537; St. Louis v. Rankin, 96 ... Secs. 5496 to 5499, 5519 ... and 5538, R.S. 1909; Charles v. City of Marion, 98 ... F. 166; Moss v. Whitzell, 108 F. 579; Railroad ... v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 241; ... ...
  • Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Bradbury
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 8 Marzo 1902
    ... ... Rep. 615; Detroit v. Chapin, 112 Mich. 588, 71 N.W ... 149, 42 L. R. A. 638; Bogert v. City of Elizabeth, ... 27 N. J. Eq. 568; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269, 19 ... S.Ct. 187; Lyon v. Towanda, 98 F. 361; Charles ... v. City, 98 F. 166; Wurts v. Hoagland, 114 U.S. 613, 5 ... S.Ct. 1086.) ... John ... ...
  • 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