Gast Realty Investment Company v. Schneider Granite Company, No. 211

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHolmes
Citation36 S.Ct. 254,60 L.Ed. 523,240 U.S. 55
Decision Date31 January 1916
Docket NumberNo. 211
PartiesGAST REALTY & INVESTMENT COMPANY and Emily Gast, Plffs. in Err., v. SCHNEIDER GRANITE COMPANY

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.

Page 56

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]

Page 57

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

Page 58

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
123 practice notes
  • Lowry, Ins. Com'r. v. City of Clarksdale, 27796
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 6, 1929
    ...of Comm'rs, 239 U.S. 478, 60 L.Ed. 392; [154 Miss. 159] Saunders v. Shaw, 244 U.S. 317, 61 L.Ed. 1163; Gast R. & I. Co. v. Granite Co., 240 U.S. 55, 60 L.Ed. 523. Discrimination in that tax-benefited parties not taxed. Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Calhoun, 287 F. 381. Sec. 112, state Constitut......
  • Austin v. Dickey, No. 24691.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 3, 1928
    ...to the taxing district, in the case at bar, does not violate any constitutional provision. Gast R. & Inv. Co. v. Schneider Granite Co., 240 U.S. 55; Ruecking Const. Co. v. Withnell, 269 Mo. 546, affirmed Withnell v. Ruecking Const. Co., 249 U.S. 63; Commerce Trust Co. v. Keck, 283 Mo. 209. ......
  • Kansas City v. Jones Store Co., No. 29710.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 3, 1930
    ...the special benefits to such private property. Charter of Kansas City, Art. VI, sec. 154; Gast Realty Co. v. Schneider Granite Co., 240 U.S. 55, 60 L. Ed. 526; Hesse-Rix Co. v. Krug (Mo.), 6 S.W. (2d) 570. (16) The jury erred in assessing special benefits against, rather than awarding damag......
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...Co., 169 U.S. 557; State ex rel. Penrose Inv. Co. v. McKelvey, 301 Mo. 1; Lansdown v. Kierns, 303 Mo. 75; Gast Realty Co. v. Granite Co., 240 U.S. 55. (6) The act denies to citizens and owners of property within the district and adjoining the district due process of law, in violation of Sec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
123 cases
  • Lowry, Ins. Com'r. v. City of Clarksdale, 27796
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 6, 1929
    ...of Comm'rs, 239 U.S. 478, 60 L.Ed. 392; [154 Miss. 159] Saunders v. Shaw, 244 U.S. 317, 61 L.Ed. 1163; Gast R. & I. Co. v. Granite Co., 240 U.S. 55, 60 L.Ed. 523. Discrimination in that tax-benefited parties not taxed. Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Calhoun, 287 F. 381. Sec. 112, state Constitut......
  • Austin v. Dickey, No. 24691.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 3, 1928
    ...to the taxing district, in the case at bar, does not violate any constitutional provision. Gast R. & Inv. Co. v. Schneider Granite Co., 240 U.S. 55; Ruecking Const. Co. v. Withnell, 269 Mo. 546, affirmed Withnell v. Ruecking Const. Co., 249 U.S. 63; Commerce Trust Co. v. Keck, 283 Mo. 209. ......
  • Kansas City v. Jones Store Co., No. 29710.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 3, 1930
    ...the special benefits to such private property. Charter of Kansas City, Art. VI, sec. 154; Gast Realty Co. v. Schneider Granite Co., 240 U.S. 55, 60 L. Ed. 526; Hesse-Rix Co. v. Krug (Mo.), 6 S.W. (2d) 570. (16) The jury erred in assessing special benefits against, rather than awarding damag......
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...Co., 169 U.S. 557; State ex rel. Penrose Inv. Co. v. McKelvey, 301 Mo. 1; Lansdown v. Kierns, 303 Mo. 75; Gast Realty Co. v. Granite Co., 240 U.S. 55. (6) The act denies to citizens and owners of property within the district and adjoining the district due process of law, in violation of Sec......
  • 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