Davis v. City Of Lynchburg

Decision Date03 May 1888
Citation84 Va. 861,6 S.E. 230
PartiesDavis v. City of Lynchburg.
CourtVirginia Supreme Court
1.Municipal Corporations—Public Improvements—Constitutional Law—Due Process of Law.

The provisions of a city charter that whenever a street shall be opened, graded, or paved, or any culvert or other public improvement made, the city council may apportion the expense between the city and the owners of real estate benefited thereby, and order the expense to be borne by such owners, and to be collected as city taxes, but that such improvements shall not be made except upon the petition of a majority of the owners of such real estate, or unless ordered by three-fourths of said council, is not repugnant to Const.U. S. 14th Amendment, as containing no provision for the party affected to appear and contest the proceeding, each citizen being charged with notice of public laws, and the progress of the work being notice to parties interested.

2.Same—Assessment per Front Foot.

The system of assessing real estate adjacent to a street to be improved, by the front foot, is constitutional.

Error to corporation court of Lynchburg.

Suit brought by Davis to recover of the city of Lynchburg $99, the amount paid on an assessment made by the city against plaintiff.Judgment for defendant.Plaintiff brings error.

Kirkpatrick & Blackford, for plaintiff in error.R. 67. H. Kean, for defendant in error.

Lacy, J.This is a writ of error to a judgment of the corporation court of the city of Lynchburg.The suit was brought to recover of the city of Lynchburg the sum of $99, the amount of an assessment made by the city against the plaintiff, who is the owner of a lot fronting 120 feet on Grace street in said city.The assessment was made under the seventh section of the city charter, which provides that whenever any new street shall be opened, any street graded or paved, or any culvert or other public improvement made, the city council may apportion the expense between the city and the owners of the real estate benefited thereby, and may order that the whole expense shall be borne by the owners of such real estate, and to be collected as city taxes; but this improvement must not be made except upon the petition of a majority of the owners of such real estate, or unless, in ordering such improvement, three-fourths of said council shall concur; which is in accordance with general ordinance No. 1.When the improvement in question was made it was done on the recommendation of the street committee of the city council, and ordered by a unanimous vote of the council.The plaintiff in errorclaims that this assessment is in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, because no provision is made for the person to appear and contest the proceedings, and that he is thus deprived of his property without due process of law.

As we have seen, the assessment is expressly authorized by the legislature in the seventh section of the charter.That the legislature had the power to authorize these assessments is settled.Norfolk v. Ellis, 26 Grat. 224.When this work was done the cost was estimated per foot.Under the general ordinance the city bore one-half, and each lot-owner on either side one-fourth, and the share of the plaintiff was thus ascertained to be $99, her front being 120 feet.This regular proceeding was reported duly and regularly to the council, and then approved.No complaint was ever made to the council by any person that anything was done irregularly or erroneously, while the work progressed, for months, under the provisions of the general public law known to all.

It is claimed that the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States invalidates the ordinance, and everything which has been done under it because the ordinance does not provide that the owners shall be served with notice of the assessment and given a time and a place to show cause against it.There are decisions cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in error which seem to hold these views.Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 188;Santa Clara Co. v. RailroadCo., 18 Fed. Rep. 385;Mulligan v. Smith, 59 Cal. 206;G...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
21 cases
  • Rolph v. City of Fargo
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1898
    ...25 Am. and Eng. Enc. L. 524, n. I; Beaumont v. City, 21 At. Rep. 888; Haveland v. City, 34 N.E. 679; City v. Peace, 14 S.E. 521; Davis v. City, 6 S.E. 230; Amery v. City, 30 N.W. 780. Statutes similar to the one complained of in this case, have been enacted and approved in many of the state......
  • Rock v. Rock
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 6, 1904
    ...435; 50 Kas. 508; 38 Kas. 590; 52 Ohio St. 419. Due notice was given. 92 U.S. 801; 52 Ark. 538; 115 U.S. 321; 149 U.S. 30; 13 R. I. 50; 84 Va. 861; 2 Mich. 560; 63 Ia. 718; 17 W.Va. 812; 80 626; 189 U.S. 383; 36 Ark. 184. The legislature had authority. 21 Ark. 49; 36 Ark. 139; 37 Ark. 369; ......
  • G. T. Fogle & Co. v. King
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1948
    ... ... conforming to the requirement of Section 85 of the charter of ... the City of Dunbar, as amended and reenacted by Acts of the ... Legislature of West Virginia, 1925 ... 623, 45 L.Ed. 912; ... Chadwick v. Kelly, 187 U.S. 540, 23 S.Ct. 175, 47 ... L.Ed. 293; Davis v. City of Lynchburg, 84 Va. 861, 6 ... S.E. 230. The Supreme Court has said: 'A system of ... ...
  • State v. Pillsbury
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • February 6, 1901
    ... ...          Modified ...           ... SYLLABUS ...          City of ... Minneapolis -- Local Improvement -- Notice ...          In the ... charter of ... be made in the manner prescribed. Davis v. City, 84 ... Va. 861; Finnell v. Kates, supra; Inhabitants v ... Morton, 25 Mo. 593; ... ...
  • Get Started for Free