Dougherty v. American Security & Trust Co., 4949.

• Decision Date: 07 April 1930
• Docket Number: No. 4949.,4949.
• Citation: 59 App. DC 301,40 F.2d 813
• Parties: DOUGHERTY et al. v. AMERICAN SECURITY & TRUST CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

59 App. DC 301, 40 F.2d 813 (1930)

DOUGHERTY et al. v. AMERICAN SECURITY & TRUST CO. et al.

No. 4949.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Argued March 7, 1930.

Decided April 7, 1930.

F. H. Stephens and V. E. West, both of Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Frederic D. McKenney, John S. Flannery, G. Bowdoin Craighill, Wilton J. Lambert, and Rudolph H. Yeatman, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

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

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This appeal is from a decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, canceling assessments for the widening and paving of Wisconsin avenue.

The bill was filed by the American Security & Trust Company, and Edward B. McLean, as trustees of the estate of John R. McLean, deceased; and involves assessments made against various parcels of land abutting on Wisconsin avenue, containing about 75.16 acres. The assessments were made under the provisions of the Act of Congress of July 21, 1914, 38 Stat. 517, 524; and also the provisions of the Act of September 1, 1916, 39 Stat. 676, 716, known as the Borland Amendment.

The method of taxation provided for in the foregoing statutes is under what is known as the front foot rule. In the present case the defendants were assessed $2.92 per front foot on the land abutting on said avenue, for paving, and $.574 per front foot for the curb; the total assessment amounting to $6,618.27.

The decree is based upon the decision of this court in the case of Johnson et al. v. Rudolph et al., 57 App. D. C. 29, 16 F.(2d) 525, involving a similar assessment on Rhode Island avenue. The conditions are so similar on Wisconsin avenue to those on Rhode Island avenue, and the issues here involved to those in the Johnson Case, that a brief comparison will dispose of the present case.

The lands here involved comprise a tract which was used as a country home by John R. McLean during his lifetime, and is now occupied by his son Edward B. McLean. On the plat filed herein, streets are shown which have not been opened, but are projected under the "District Highway Plan," which presents a situation exactly similar to that considered in relation to the small tract in the Johnson Case. Across Wisconsin avenue from the McLean tract, and on the east side thereof, the lots and blocks abutting on the avenue are largely improved with dwellings, and similar improvements are found on the west side of the avenue immediately south of...