Rudolph v. Knox
| Decision Date | 01 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | 3737. |
| Citation | 280 F. 1007 |
| Parties | RUDOLPH et al. v. KNOX et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Submitted April 7, 1922.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
F. H Stephens, of Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Vernon E. West, of Washington, D.C., for appellees.
This is an appeal from a decree canceling a special assessment levied by the appellants on the property of the appellees for paving a roadway in front of their property with what is designated as common macadam.
There is an agreed statement of facts which shows that the property lies in a rural section of the District of Columbia, and that it abuts on what is known as Naylor road; that it consists of a farm of a little over 56 acres; that it is rough, broken hilly, and cut by deep ravines, and is not fit for any other purpose than that of pasturing and farming that it is valued at about $11,300, and that the assessment amounts to $2,199.53; that the land extends along the road 2,660 feet; that Naylor road is an old highway, having been in existence for over 30 years, connects the District line with an important Maryland state highway, and is about 90 feet wide; and that the macadamized surface covers a width of 18 feet, 9 feet on each side of the longitudinal center of the road, thus leaving about 35 feet between the macadam and the property line.
Congress by Act of July 21, 1914, said:
'Hereafter whenever under appropriations made by Congress, the roadway of any street, avenue, or road in the District of Columbia is improved by laying a new pavement thereon or completely resurfacing the same, not less than one square in extent, from curb to curb, or from gutter to gutter where no curb exists, where the material used is * * * asphaltic or bituminous macadam, concrete, or other fixed roadway pavement, such proportion of the total cost of the work * * * shall be levied pro rata according to the linear frontage of said property on the street, avenue, or road, or portion thereof upon the roadway of which said new pavement or resurfacing is laid.' 38 Stat. 517, 524.
The agreed statement of facts admits that the Board of Commissioners and the District construed this act as not authorizing the levy of an assessment for laying common or water-bound macadam pavements. In 1916 Congress passed another act (39 Stat. 676, 716), which provides in section 8:
'That hereafter the half cost of the paving or repaving of a roadway between the side thereof and the center thereof with sheet asphalt, * * * macadam, or other form of pavement shall be assessed against the property abutting the side of the street so improved,' and that 'there shall be included in the area the cost of which is assessable hereunder only the roadway area abutting the property between lines normally projected from the building line of the street being improved at the points of intersection with the building lines of intersecting streets.'
The question for our consideration is whether or not these acts or either of them, authorized the levy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Rudolph
...avenue from the heart of the city to the limits of the improved section. We are not, therefore, as in the case of Rudolph et al. v. Knox et al., 52 App. D. C. 33, 280 F. 1007, dealing with farm property fronting on a suburban country road. We have a city street, with street car line, sewera......
-
Converse v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
...728; Central R. Co. v. Duffy, 289 F. 354, 359 (3d C. C. A.); Merriam v. United States, 282 F. 851, 855 (2d C. C. A.); Rudolph v. Knox, 280 F. 1007, 1009, 52 App. D. C. 33; Dayton Brass Castings Co. v. Gilligan (C. C. A.) 277 F. 227, 229; Cartier v. Doyle (C. C. A.) 277 F. 150, 152; Rice v. ......
- Devlin v. Esher, 3729.