Evans v. City of Denver

Citation26 Colo. 193,57 P. 696
PartiesEVANS et al. v. CITY OF DENVER et al.
Decision Date17 April 1899
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Error to district court, Arapahoe county.

Action by John Evans and others against the city of Denver and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Reversed.

In the case of Keese v. City of Denver, 10 Colo. 112, 15 P. 825, it was held by this court that the assessments levied to defray the expense incurred in constructing a sewer in the Thirteenth sewer district of the city of Denver, under the provisions of ordinances passed by its council March 6, 1882 and July 3, 1883, which created this district, and under which such assessments were made, could not be enforced because the provisions of the city charter relative to conditions precedent had not been observed, which were necessary in order to legally authorize the assessment of adjoining lots with their pro rata share of the expense of the construction of such sewer. In 1893 the general assembly passed an act which, in terms, provided that when, by final judgment of the court of appeals or of this court, any assessments theretofore made by the city of Denver for the construction of sewers in any district in the city have been declared invalid in a direct action to determine their validity, the city nevertheless may, upon the passage of a resolution by the council declaring such sewers necessary for sanitary reasons, assess the reasonable value of that portion of the sewer adjoining lots in the district, assessments for which remain unpaid, against such lots, with interest from date of construction. Section 48, art. 7, p. 219, Laws 1893. Under this law the city council caused the respective lots of the respective plaintiffs to be assessed for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the construction of the sewer, the former assessments for which, in Keese v. City of Denver, had been declared invalid; and it is to restrain the collection of these latter assessments that plaintiffs brought this action. Upon the issues being made up, the parties entered into a stipulation regarding the facts, by which the only question presented for determination is whether or not section 48, supra, is in conflict with section 11, art. 2, of the constitution, which provides in express terms that no law retrospective in its operation shall be passed by the general assembly. The judgment of the trial court was in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs bring the case here on error.

Benedict & Phelps, Robert W. Bonynge, and Horace Phelps, for plaintiffs in error.

J. M Ellis, S. L. Carpenter, F. A. Williams, G. Q. Richmond, and John C. Norris, for defendants in error.

GABBERT J. (after stating the facts).

The only question presented, and upon which a decision of the case rests, is whether or not the act of the legislature under which the city, by its subsequent action, seeks to enforce the collection of the levy made, is retrospective in its legal sense. It will be observed that this levy is for the purpose of compelling adjacent lot owners to pay the expense of a sewer constructed prior to the time when the act of the general assembly authorizing the action of the municipal authorities, which plaintiffs in error seek to restrain, took effect. By the terms of the city charter in force when the sewer was constructed it was provided 'The city council shall cause sewers to be constructed in any district whenever a majority of the property holders resident therein shall petition therefor, or whenever the board of health recommend the same as necessary for sanitary reasons, and said recommendation is approved by the city council.' Laws 1879, p. 200, § 3. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Stark v. McLaughlin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • November 5, 1927
    ...Sess. Laws 1927, chap. 5, is retroactive in character and prohibited by the constitution. (Const., art. 11, sec. 12; Evans v. City of Denver, 26 Colo. 193, 57 P. 696; Black on Constitutional Law, p. Local and Special Laws of Idaho 1927, chap. 105, is a special and local act. (Mix v. Board o......
  • California Co. v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • December 21, 1959
    ...an existing right of action or defense, or creates a new obligation on transactions or considerations already past.' Evans v. City of Denver, 26 Colo. 193, 57 P. 696, 697. Finally, in respect to the order entered by the trial court for an accounting, it appears that the determination of the......
  • People v. District Court
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • June 29, 1992
    ...on past transactions or considerations. Martin v. Board of Assessment Appeals, 707 P.2d 348, 351 (Colo.1985); Evans v. Denver, 26 Colo. 193, 196, 57 P. 696, 697 (1899). We recognize our freedom to interpret our state constitutional provisions in a manner different than the United States Sup......
  • Powell v. McKelvey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • November 20, 1935
    ...... While property owners, abutting on street which predecessor. in title had dedicated to city or state for use as such,. owned fee of land to center of street, city or state had. complete ... the law was enacted. ( Sturges v. Carter, 114 U.S. 511, 5 S.Ct. 1014, 29 L.Ed. 240; Evans v. City of. Denver, 26 Colo. 193, 57 P. 696, 697; Ross v. Lettice, 134 Ga. 866, 68 S.E. 734, ......
  • 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