Dewey v. Des Moines
Citations
- 173 U.S. 193
- 19 S. Ct. 379
- 43 L. Ed. 665
- 1899 U.S. LEXIS 1429
Syllabus
<p>A resident in and citizen of Chicago in Illinois, was the owner of certain lots in Des Moines in Iowa, which- werve assessed by the municipal authorities in that place to an amount beyond their value, for the purpose of paving the street upon which they abutted. The statutes of Iowa authorized a personal judgment against the owner in such cases. He filed a petition to have the assessment set aside; to obtain an injunction against further proceedings for the sale of the property; and to obtain a judgment that there was no personal liability against him for the excess. This petition contained no allegation attacking the validity of. the assessment by reason of any violation of the Federal Constitution, and there was nothing in the record to raise such Federal right or claim beyond the mere allegation in the petition that “ the amount of said tax is greater than the reasonable market value of said lots, whether considered singly or together; the assessment against each particular lot being greater in amount than the value of such particular lot, and the aggregate assessment being greater in amount than the reasonable market value of all of said lots taken together; and that said defendants are seeking to enforce as against plaintiff not merely a sale of said lots but also to compel plaintiff to pay the full amount of said tax regardless of whatever sum said lots may be sold for, and regardless of the actual value of the same.” The contractor for the pavement set up his right to a judgment on certificates given him for the work which had been done, which were made a lien upon the abutting lots. The trial court dismissed the petition, and gave judgment in favor of the.contract. In the Supreme Court of the State it was assigned as error that “ the court erred in holding and deciding that plaintiff was personally liable to said Des Moines' Brick Manufacturing Company for so much of said special tax or assessment as could not or would - not be realized by a sale of the s
Judges: Peckham, After Stating the Facts
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
79 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court· 1983-06-08· cited 16,716×
- People v. De BourNew York Court of Appeals· 1976-06-15· cited 2,736×
- Sanders v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1963-04-29· cited 2,713×
- Whitney v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1927-05-16· cited 1,054×
- Williams v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 1943-01-04· cited 1,003×
- Yee v. City of EscondidoSupreme Court· 1992-04-01· cited 953×
- Slochower v. Board of Higher Ed. of New York CitySupreme Court· 1956-04-09· cited 744×
- Lear, Inc. v. AdkinsSupreme Court· 1969-06-16· cited 551×
- Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger CorporationSupreme Court· 1995-02-21· cited 483×
- Wuchter v. PizzuttiSupreme Court· 1928-02-20· cited 437×
- Raley v. OhioSupreme Court· 1959-06-22· cited 376×
- Fuller v. OregonSupreme Court· 1974-05-20· cited 365×
- Miller Brothers Co. v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1954-05-03· cited 331×
- Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. BigelowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1909-09-14· cited 235×
- Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. CrenshawSupreme Court· 1988-05-16· cited 224×
- Jones v. OpelikaSupreme Court· 1942-06-08· cited 216×
- New York Ex Rel. Bryant v. ZimmermanSupreme Court· 1928-11-19· cited 213×
- Bristol v. Washington CountySupreme Court· 1900-04-09· cited 147×
- Michael Santo Polizzi v. United States of America, Emprise Corporation v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1976-04-07· cited 111×
- People v. JonesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1981-05-26· cited 103×
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court· 1897-03-01· cited 1,229×
- Case of the State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds. Railroad Company v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court· 1873-03-10· cited 153×
- Mexican Central Railway Co. v. PinkneySupreme Court· 1893-05-01· cited 130×
- Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler CountySupreme Court· 1897-04-19· cited 80×
- Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Co.Supreme Court· 1864-02-18· cited 79×
- Sayward v. DennySupreme Court· 1895-05-06· cited 58×
- Powell v. Brunswick CountySupreme Court· 1893-12-04· cited 26×
- Roby v. ColehourSupreme Court· 1892-11-07· cited 21×
- Farwell v. Des Moines Brick Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Iowa· 1896-02-11· cited 17×
- Capital National Bank v. First National BankSupreme Court· 1899-01-03· cited 16×
- Kipley v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1898-04-18· cited 13×
- Levy v. Superior Court of San FranciscoSupreme Court· 1897-05-10· cited 8×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.