Crosby v. Moebs, 5282.
| Decision Date | 08 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 5282.,5282. |
| Citation | 57 F.2d 408 |
| Parties | CROSBY et al. v. MOEBS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
William W. Bride, Vernon E. West, and F. H. Stephens, all of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Charles F. Diggs, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
This appeal is from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia canceling an assessment made for paving the roadway of Connecticut avenue. The assessment was made under the authority of what is known as the Borland Amendment (38 Stat. 524). The property in question — lot 13, square 138 — is located on the west side of Connecticut Avenue Northwest, between N street and Dupont circle, in the city of Washington, and fronts on Connecticut avenue 298 feet, and fronts on Nineteenth street approximately 327 feet. The lot is triangular in shape running to a point at the north end and having a depth at the south end of 136.02 feet.
The only distinction attempted to be made between this case and the case of Johnson v. Rudolph, 57 App. D. C. 29, 16 F.(2d) 525, is that in that case the proceedings were instituted and improvements made by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, while in the case at bar the improvements were made in compliance with a special act of Congress. We are clearly of the opinion that this distinction is without merit as in both instances the improvements were made under authority and by the direction of Congress. In the Johnson Case, full power had been vested by Congress in the commissioners to proceed under the terms of the act, hence the authority arises from the same source, namely, the legislative power. Hancock v. City of Muskogee, 250 U. S. 454, 39 S. Ct. 528, 63 L. Ed. 1081. This case therefore is controlled in all particulars by the Johnson Case.
The decree is affirmed with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
University City, to Use of Schulz v. Amos
... ... Carolina & N.W. Ry. Co. v. City of Plover, 46 F.2d ... 495; Crosby v. Dodge, 46 F.2d 727; Crosby v ... Moebs, 57 F.2d 408; Reichalderfer et al. v ... Hechinger, ... ...
-
STANLEY COMPANY OF AMERICA v. McLaughlin, Civ. A. No. 2863-60.
..."fronting or abutting" on a certain street or area to be controlling in this case, as suggested by the plaintiffs. Crosby v. Moebs, 1932, 61 App.D.C. 42, 57 F.2d 408. What might be considered as fronting on Pennsylvania Avenue for purposes of regulating the planning for buildings along the ......
- Dorsey v. Gotwals, 5280.