Hunter, Jr v. City of Pittsburgh
Decision Date | 18 November 1907 |
Docket Number | No. 264,264 |
Parties | D. HUNTER, JR., Robert K. Cochrane, John A. Sauer, Herman W. Heckleman, and the City of Allegheny, Plffs. in Err., v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
A law of the state of Pennsylvania provides for the union of cities which are contiguous or in close proximity, by the annexation of the lesser to the larger. The parts of that law material to this decision follow:
* * * * *
* * * * *
'Except as herein otherwise provided, all the property, real, personal, and mixed, and rights and privileges of every kind, vested in or belonging to either of said cities or to the intervening land prior to and at the time of the annexation, shall be vested in and owned by the consolidated or united city.
* * * * *
* * * * *
'After the commissioners have made report, the court shall, by its decree, fix the said indebtendness and liabilities, and also the properties and assets, of all kinds, at the time of the annexation, belonging to each territory, united in the consolidation.'
The city of Pittsburgh, under the provision of this act, filed in the court of quarter sessions of Allegheny county a petition asking for the union of the city of Allegheny with the city of Pittsburgh. The plaintiffs in error (except the city of Allegheny) seasonably filed exceptions to the petition under § 4 of the act. The parts of the exceptions material here are as follows:
'1st. That they are residents and citizens, voters, taxpayers, and owners of real estate and personal property within the city of Allegheny, county of Allegheny, and state of Pennsylvania.
'4th. That the population of the city of Pittsburgh by the census of 1900 was 321,616 and that it has now a population of at least 350,000. That there were polled at the last mayoralty election in the said city, on February 20th, 1906, about 62,000 votes in round numbers.
'That the population of the city of Allegheny, by the census of 1900, was 129,896, and that it is probably about 150,000 at the present time; that there were polled at the last mayoralty election in the said city, on February 20th, 1906, about 24,000 votes in round numbers.
'6th. The city of Allegheny has improved its streets, established its own system of electric lighting; and has established a satisfactory water supply. The city of Pittsburgh is largely in debt; has established large and extensive parks in the eastern part of the city; built expensive and costly boulevards; extensive and costly reservoirs for the supply of wateer; and is contemplating still greater expenditures of money in the cutting down and grading of the elevation of Fifth avenue, known as the hump; and the construction of an extensive filtration plant; and a large expenditure of money in the purchase of the Monongahela Water Company platn,—a plant owned by a private corporation; and the further expensive construction of an electric light plant to be owned by the city of Pittsburgh, the said city owning at the present time no light plant, it being supplied with light from a private corporation; and the further expenditure of various sums of money for the acquirement of advantages and property which the citizens of Allegheny now practically own and enjoy but which the citizens of Pittsburgh do not, and to acquire which would largely increase the indebtedness of the city of Pittsburgh, and if the city of Allegheny should be annexed to the city of Pittsburgh, the taxpayers of Allegheny, including your respondents, will, in addition to the payment of the taxes necessary to pay and liquidate their own indebtedness, have to bear and pay their proportion of the new indebtedness that must necessarily be created to acquire the facilities, properties, and improvements, herein stated, in Pittsburgh; all of which would be of no benefit to the citizens and taxpayers of Allegheny, including your respondents, who now own and possess these advantages and privileges; and which will largely and unnecessarily increase the taxes of your respondents, as well as the taxes of the other citizens of Allegheny, without any material benefit to them whatever.
'12th. The act of assembly under which this petition is filed for the annexation of the city of Allegheny to the city of Pittsburgh is in conflict with article 1, § 9, ¶ 10, of the Constitution of the United States, in that it impairs the obligations of the contract existing between the city of Allegheny and your respondents, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moody v. Flowers
...... District No. 5, comprising Beat 3 (the City of Dothan), contains 9,046 electors. . According to the 1960 census the total ...As stated by the Court in Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 178, 28 S.Ct. 40, 46, 52 L.Ed. 151, these governmental units ......
-
Haytasingh v. City of San Diego
...... subdivisions of the state." Although Freitas does make this statement, the statement is originally derived from the legal discussion in Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh (1907) 207 U.S. 161, 178, 28 S.Ct. 40, 52 L.Ed. 151, in which the United States Supreme Court offered a summary of certain ......
-
Simi Valley Recreation & Park Dist. v. Local Agency Formation Com.
...... The area encompassed by District is located in southeastern Ventura County. It includes the City of Simi Valley, the balance of the Simi Valley, and surrounding territory. The 10,000-acre parcel ... (Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 178--179 (28 S.Ct. 40, 52 L.Ed. 151); Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 ......
-
Haytasingh v. City of San Diego
...Freitas does make this statement, the statement is originally derived from the legal discussion in Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh (1907) 207 U.S. 161, 178, 28 S.Ct. 40, 52 L.Ed. 151, in which the United States Supreme Court offered a summary of certain "principles [that] have been established......
-
Tax-Exempt Lending to Governments and Nonprofits; Bank Loans and Direct Purchases of Municipal Securities
...of debt such as the maximum term, the net effecti ve interest rate, the interest rate or adjustm ent, 4 Hunter v. City of Pit tsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, (1907).5 4Orrick Tax-Exempt Lending to Governments and Nonprofits; Bank Loans and Direct Purchases of Municipal Securitiesthe default rate, o......
-
Home Rule Power for Cities and Counties in Kansas
...the idea of local governments as having inherent sovereign power. Libonatic, supra note 5. [FN11]. See Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 28 S.Ct. 40, 52 L.Ed. 151 (1907). [FN12]. Other constitutional limitations upon the power of the state legislatures exist in some states, such a......
-
Community, Society, and Individualism in Constitutional Law
...claim to pursue one’s occupation by applying the deferential “rational relation” standard). 96. See, e.g. , Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 178–79 (1907) (finding no constitutional basis for small community’s objections to being annexed by nearby city). 97. See generally LEVY, ......
-
The 'Euclidean' Strategy: Authorizing and Implementing the Legislative Districting of Permissible Land Uses
...Tenth street from the river Delaware, “as they may 15. The classic and enduring characterization appears in Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 178-79 (1907): Municipal corporations are political subdivisions of the state, created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the go......
-
CHAPTER 5 LOCAL LAND USE REGULATION OF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
...§ 5(a). [14] Colo. Const. art. IX, § 9. [15] See e.g., City of Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182 (1923); Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907). [16] O.Reynolds, note 8 supra at § 49. The classic definition of Dillon's Rule provides that substate units have (1) those powers exp......