Gast Realty Investment Company v. Schneider Granite Company

• Decision Date: 31 January 1916
• Docket Number: No. 211,211
• Citation: 36 S.Ct. 254,60 L.Ed. 523,240 U.S. 55
• Parties: GAST REALTY & INVESTMENT COMPANY and Emily Gast, Plffs. in Err., v. SCHNEIDER GRANITE COMPANY
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

240 U.S. 55

36 S.Ct. 254

60 L.Ed. 523

GAST REALTY & INVESTMENT COMPANY and Emily Gast, Plffs. in Err.,

v SCHNEIDER GRANITE COMPANY.

No. 211.

Argued January 21, 1916.

Decided January 31, 1916.

Messrs. Thomas G. Rutledge, Robert A. Holland, Jr., Jacob M. Lashley, and David Goldsmith for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Hickman P. Rodgers and William K. Koerner for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 56 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit to collect a tax for paving Broadway, a street in St. Louis, levied upon land of the defendants fronting upon that street. The plaintiff, defendant in error, did the work, received an assignment of the tax, and got a judgment for the amount. The only question here is whether the ordinance levying the tax under the charter of the city is consistent with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The charter provides that one fourth of the total cost shall be levied upon all the property fronting upon or adjoining the improvement according to frontage and three fourths according to area upon all the property in the district, ascertained as follows: 'A line shall be drawn midway between the street to be improved and the next parallel or converging street on each side of the street to be improved, which line shall be the boundary of the district, except as hereinafter provided, namely: If the property adjoining the street to be improved is divided into lots, the district line shall be so drawn as to include the entire depth of all lots fronting on the street to be improved. . . . If there is no parallel or converging street on either side of the street improved, the district lines shall be drawn 300 feet from and parallel to the street to be improved; but if there be a parallel or converging street on one side of the street to be improved to fix and locate the district line, then the district line on the other side shall be drawn parallel to the street to be improved and at the average distance of the opposite district line so fixed and located.' The defendants' land has a frontage on the west side of Broadway of 1,083.88 feet out of a total in the district constituted said to be 4,372 feet. It is an undivided tract extending back nearly a thousand feet to Church road. On the south the adjoining property was divided into lots of small depth, and on the opposite side of Broadway the next parallel street was about 300 feet from Broadway. The ordinance establishing the taxing district treated Church road as the next parallel street within the meaning of the charter, and included the defendants' tract to a depth of between 400 and 500 feet, while the small lots next to it were included to only about 100 feet, the opposite lots to about 150 feet, and another undivided tract on the east of Broadway was included by average distance to a depth of 240 feet. The ordinance establishing these lines was held to follow the charter and to be consistent with the 14th Amendment by the supreme court of the state. 259 Mo. 153, 168 S. W. 687.

The legislature may create taxing districts to meet the expense of local improvements, and may fix the basis of taxation without encountering the 14th Amendment unless its...