Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel Improvement Dist

Decision Date11 June 1923
Docket NumberNo. 791,791
Citation43 S.Ct. 694,67 L.Ed. 1194,262 U.S. 710
PartiesMILHEIM et al. v. MOFFAT TUNNEL IMPROVEMENT DIST. et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Syllabus from 710-711 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Edwin H. Park and Barnwell S. Stuart, both of Denver, Colo., for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Norton Montgomery, of Denver, Colo., for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice SANFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.

The defendants in error move to dismiss the writ of error or affirm the judgment.

This is a suit challenging the constitutionality of an act of the State of Colorado creating a tunnel improvement district (Sess. Laws Ex. Sess. 1922, c. 2, p. 88), and the proceedings thereunder.

This Act, which is known as the Moffat Tunnel Act, declares that to provide an avenue of communication by a transportation tunnel through the Continental Divide at or near James Peak will reduce the barrier to commercial intercourse between the eastern and western portions of the State, facilitate communication in all seasons, and promote the health, comfort, safety, convenience and welfare of the people of the State, and will be of especial benefit to the property in certain designated boundaries within which such tunnel is to be located. To that end it creates 'The Moffat Tunnel Improvement District,' a body corporate, comprising all of the territory thus designated, and being all or portions of nine counties east and west of the Divide, extending between and including the City and County of Denver on the east and Routt County in the northwestern corner of the State, a total distance of about two hundred and fifty miles. The District is to be managed by a Board, called the 'Moffat Tunnel Commission,' hich is required to construct such a tunnel through the Divide, with its equipment and approaches, at about 9,200 feet above sea level, in such manner that it may be used for standard gauge railroads, telegraph and telephone lines, the transmission of power, and the transportation of water, automobiles and other vehicles.

The Commission is authorized to issue District bonds to the amount of $6,720,000 to pay for the cost of the tunnel, expenses, and interest on the bonds during its construction; to maintain the tunnel; and to contract with persons and corporations for its use for the specified purposes, without monopoly by any use, person or corporation, until its capacity has been reached, at annual rentals apportioned to the respective values of the separate uses, and constituting a fair and just proportion of the total amount required to pay interest on the bonds, provide for their retirement and maintain the tunnel; prior users to be reimbursed by subsequent users in an equitable proportion of the amount previously paid for retirement of the bonds and interest.

The Commission is authorized to levy special assessments upon all real estate within the District—except governmental property which is exempted—for the purpose provided in the Act, such special assessments to be made in proportion to the benefits to each piece of real estate accruing by reason of the improvements and in accordance with the rules of apportionment adopted by the Commission. It may at any time appraise the benefits which will result to such several parcels of real estate from the organization of the District and the construction of the tunnel, and, after such appraisal of benefits, levy special assessments, to the extent of such benefits upon all such real estate; and may for such purposes adopt rules providing, inter alia, for notice and hearing to all owners affected thereby. And if the revenues from the tunnel are not sufficient to pay interest due on the bonds in any year, provide for their retirement, pay expenses and maintain the tunnel, in order to prevent the occurrence of a deficit, the Commission is required to levy special assessments sufficient in amount, annually if necessary, upon all such real estate, in the manner provided.

It is expressly declared that the special benefits accruing to the assessable real estate within the District are in excess of the cost of the improvements and of the assessments provided for against such real estate.

In each year in which an assessment is made the Commission is required to appoint a time and place at which it will hear objections to the assessments, giving prior notice thereof by publication in two issues a week apart in a newspaper of general circulation published in each county. Any real estate owner claiming that his property has been assessed too highly, erroneously or illegally, may before such hearing file written objections to such assessment. At the hearing the Commission shall hear such evidence as may be offered concerning the correctness or legality of such assessments, and may modify or amend the same. Any property owner may appeal from the finding of the Commission as to such assessments to the District Court of the County; but the court shall not disturb the findings of the Commission unless manifestly disproportionate to the assessments imposed upon other property in the District. The findings of the Commission if not appealed from, or the findings of the District Court in case of an appeal, shall be final and conclusive evidence that such assessments have been made in proportion to the benefits conferred upon each tract of real estate by reason of the improvements, and constitute a lien thereon until paid.

The Commission, having been duly organized under the Act, fixed the definite location of the tunnel, adopted preliminary plans for its construction in such manner as to provide for the various specified uses, estimated its cost, and resolved to issue District bonds in the authorized amount to pay for its construction. Aft r making an investigation and examination of the real estate in the District, and taking the testimony of a great many witnesses from all parts of the District, engaged in various kinds of business, it determined the aggregate value of the real estate within the District subject to assessment to be $298,544,966—mainly in accordance with the assessed valuations for taxes—and further determined, subject to correction and confirmation after hearing the property owners affected, that the value of each parcel of such real estate would by reason of the organization of the District and the construction of the tunnel be increased at least to the extent of fifteen per cent. And it thereupon appraised the benefits to the several parcels of such real estate at such percentage of their value, as the basis of special assessments to be thereafter made under the provisions of the Act. It also fixed a time and place at which it would hear objections filed by any property owner to the appraisal of benefits thus made, upon evidence and argument, before confirmation thereof, and gave public notice of such hearing by publication in the manner specified in the Act. This notice recited the proceedings which the Commission had taken, including the appraisal of benefits which it had made as the basis for special assessments, and stated that any appraisal of benefits found upon such hearing to be incorrect or inequitable, would be modified or amended, and that, after making all proper corrections, the appraisals would be confirmed.

Thereupon, before the date set for such hearing, two of the plaintiffs in error, owning lands within the District, without filing with the Commission any objections to the appraisal of benefits, filed their complaint in a District Court of the State, in behalf of themselves and all similar landowners, against the Improvement District and the Tunnel Commission; alleging, inter alia, that the tunnel was not intended as a public highway for the use of the general public, but for the benefit of the Denver & Salt Lake Railroad, commonly known as the Moffat Road; that the benefits to their real estate and the other real estate in the District had been arbitrarily appraised and that no special benefits would accrue to their property or other property similarly situated; that the Act and the proceedings taken and threatened by the Commission- thereunder violated various provisions of the State Constitution and would deprive them of their property without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and praying that the defendants be enjoined from proceeding with the enforcement of the Act and that all the proceedings of the Commission be declared null and void. The defendants in their answers denied these allegations. The other plaintiffs in error, also owning lands within the District, who likewise had filed no objections with the Commission, subsequently intervened as plaintiffs in the action.

The case was heard by the District Court upon the pleadings and proof. The issues, both of fact and law, including those relating to the appraisal of benefits, were found for the defendants; and the complaint was accordingly dismissed.

Upon writ of error taken, the Supreme Court of Colorado sustained the District Court in all respects and affirmed its judgment. 211 Pac. 649.

The landowners urge here, as grounds of error, in substance, that the Act and the proceedings taken and permitted thereunder violate the Fourteenth Amendment in that: (a) The purpose of the Act is not public in the sense warranting the exercise of the power of taxation, but is essentially private; (b) the Act authorizes the imposition of the entire taxes upon the lands within the District, without regard to their relation to the tunnel or the benefit to be derived from it, and, there being no special benefits to such lands justifying such taxation, such classification is entirely arbitrary; and (c) the Commission has arbitrarily and unreasonably adopted an ad valorem basis for the appraisal and apportionment of benefits to the several parcels of land within the District, without reference to the actual benefits to each.

The federal question...

To continue reading

Request your trial
84 cases
  • Rumbaugh v. Winifrede Railroad Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • March 2, 1964
    ...(1910). See Binderup v. Pathe Exch. Inc., 263 U.S. 291, 306, 44 S.Ct. 96, 68 L.Ed. 308 (1923); Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel Improvement Dist., 262 U.S. 710, 717, 43 S.Ct. 694, 67 L.Ed. 1194 (1923); Strachman v. Palmer, 177 F.2d 427, 432, 12 A.L.R.2d 687 (1st Cir. 1949) (Magruder, J., concurring......
  • Carmichael v. Southern Coal Coke Co Same v. Gulf States Paper Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1937
    ...for private purposes. See Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 238, 40 S.Ct. 499, 501, 64 L.Ed. 878; Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel Imp. Dist., 262 U.S. 710, 717, 43 S.Ct. 694, 696, 67 L.Ed. 1194; Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158, 17 S.Ct. 56, 41 L.Ed. 369; Jones v. City of Por......
  • Lee v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1940
    ... ... assessment or local improvement tax. It has none of the ... features of such a tax. It is ... 155, 43 S.Ct. 261, 67 L.Ed. 585; Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel ... [Improvement] District, 262 U.S ... ...
  • Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1928
    ... ... that trustees of internal improvement fund should pay ... drainage taxes on lands held by them, ... Sacramento & San Joaquin ... Drainage Dist., 256 U.S. 129, 41 S.Ct. 404, 65 L.Ed ... 859; Valley ... v ... Hamilton, 177 Cal. 119, 169 P. 1028; Milheim v ... Moffat Tunnel Improvement Dist., 262 U.S. 710, 43 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Reviving necessity in eminent domain.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 33 No. 1, January 2010
    • January 1, 2010
    ...that land might be taken for the purpose of laying out, extending or widening a public highway." (footnote omitted)). (108.) Rindge, 262 U.S. at 710; see also id. at 709 ("The necessity for appropriating private property for public use is not a judicial question. This power resides in the l......
  • Economic Development Incentives for Colorado Municipalities
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 02-1990, February 1990
    • Invalid date
    ...v. City of Huron, 354 N.W.2d 171 (S.D. 1984). 5. See, e.g., Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel Improvement District, 211 P. 649 (Colo. 1922), aff'd, 262 U.S. 710 (1923); Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984). 6. 390 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1986). 7. Id. at 761-762. 8. Id. at 763-64. 9. C......
  • Chapter 12 - § 12.11 • ASSESSMENT LIENS
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Real Property Law (CBA) Chapter 12 Liens
    • Invalid date
    ...over previously recorded lien of private lender).[512] See Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel Improvement Dist., 211 P. 649 (Colo. 1922), aff'd, 262 U.S. 710 (1923).[513] See People ex rel. Setters v. Lee, 213 P. 583 (Colo. 1923); Cowen v. Driscoll Constr. Co., 47 P.2d 390 (Colo. 1935). [514] E.g., R......

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