Farncomb v. City and County of Denver
| Decision Date | 01 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 110,110 |
| Citation | 40 S.Ct. 271,64 L.Ed. 424,252 U.S. 7 |
| Parties | FARNCOMB et al. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. T. J. O'Donnell, of Denver, Colo., for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. James A. Marsh, of Denver, Colo., for defendants in error.
Suit was brought in the district court of the city and county of Denver by the plaintiffs in error to enjoin the city from enforcing an assessment ordinance passed to raise the necessary means to pay for certain park improvements and the construction of boulevards and streets in the city of Denver.
The charter of the city of Denver was before this court in Londoner v. City and County of Denver, 210 U. S. 373, 28 Sup. Ct. 708, 52 L. Ed. 1103. Sections 298 and 299 of the charter provided that the board of local improvements shall prepare a statement showing the costs of improvements, interest, cost of collection, etc., and apportion the same upon each lot or tract of land to be assessed, shall cause the same to be certified by the president, and filed in the office of the clerk. The clerk shall then by advertisement in some newspaper of general circulation, published in the city and county, notify the owners of the real estate to be assessed and all persons interested that said improvements have been or will be completed, and shall specify the whole cost of the improvement, and the share so apportioned to each lot, or tract of land, or person, and any complaint or objection that may be made in writing by such persons or owners to the board of supervisors, and filed with the clerk within 60 days from the first publication of such notice, shall be heard and determined by the board of supervisors at its first regular meeting after 60 days, and before the passage of any ordinance assessing the cost of the improvements.
Section 300 provides:
'At the meeting specified in said notice, or any adjournment thereof, the board of supervisors, sitting as a board of equalization, shall hear and determine all such complaints and objections, and may recommend to the board of public works any modification of their apportionments; the board of public works may thereupon make such modifications and changes as to them may seem equitable and just, and may confirm the first apportionment and shall notify the council of their final decision; and the council shall thereupon, by ordinance, assess the costs of said improvements against all the real estate in said district and against such persons, respectivel, in the proportions above mentioned.'
Section 328 of the charter provides:
'When the cost of any such park site or parkway is definitely determined, the park commission shall prepare, certify and file with the clerk a statement showing the cost thereof as required in section 298 hereof; the clerk shall thereupon give the notice required by section 299 hereof; and thereupon the same proceedings required in section 300 hereof shall be had, except that the proceedings therein provided to be observed by the board shall be observed by the park commission; and the council shall thereupon by ordinance assess the cost against the other real estate as aforesaid, in the district, in accordance with said apportionments.'
The federal question, brought before us by the writ of error, concerns the constitutionality of section 300, above set forth—the contention being that it does not give interested property owners the opportunity to be heard where the property is to be specially assessed for making improvements of the character in question, as the hearing provided is before a board which has no power to decide any complaint which the property owner may have or make with respect to the validity or falseness of such assessment, or to correct any error in such assessment, but only has power to recommend to the power or authority, originally making the assessment, any modifications of portions of such assessment; that is, that the board of supervisors has only the power to recommend to the board of park commissioners the apportionment to be made in the assessment. It is the contention of the plaintiffs in error that the hearing thus afforded does not give due process of law within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Colorado, affirming the judgment of the district court, denied this contention, and affirmed the judgment of the district court sustaining the validity of the assessment. 171 Pac. 66.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Labaddie Bottoms River Protection Dist. v. Randall
...Trust Co. v. Elliott, 30 Fed. (2d) 700; Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97; Farncomb v. Denver, 252 U.S. 7; First Natl. Bank v. Board of County Commissioners, 264 U.S. 450. (c) In the absence of fraud or an unquestionable showing that th......
-
Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation Same v. Kenzie
...79 L.Ed. 259; compare Red 'C' Oil Mfg. Co. v. North Carolina, 222 U.S. 380, 394, 32 S.Ct. 152, 56 L.Ed. 240; Farncomb v. Denver, 252 U.S. 7, 12, 40 S.Ct. 271, 273, 64 L.Ed. 424; Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel District, 262 U.S. 710, 723, 43 S.Ct. 694, 698, 67 L.Ed. 1194; McGregor v. Hogan, 263 U.......
-
Labaddie Bottoms River Protection Dist. of Franklin County v. Randall
...Trust Co. v. Elliott, 30 F.2d 700; Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97; Farncomb v. Denver, 252 U.S. 7; First Natl. v. Board of County Commissioners, 264 U.S. 450. (c) In the absence of fraud or an unquestionable showing that the assessme......
-
Ocean Beach Hotel Co. v. Town of Atlantic Beach
...... . . Certiorari to. Circuit Court, Dade County; Miles W. Lewis, Judge. [2 So.2d 880] . . [147 Fla. 447] ... to find error. . . In Summerland,. Inc., v. City of Punta Gorda, 101 Fla. 543, 134 So. 611,. 614, the property owners ... 39]; Robert Noble Estate v. Boise City (D.C) 19 F.2d. 927; Farncomb v. City and County of Denver, 252 U.S. 7, 40 S.Ct. 271, 64 L.Ed. 424.'. ......