Fay v. City of Springfield

Citations

• 94 F. 409
• 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3068

Syllabus

<p>1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — PlULlO IMPROVEMENTS — ASSESSMENTS—FRONT-FOOT Rule.</p> <p>The statute of Missouri (sections 1495, 1496, Rev. St. 1889) authorizing th(‘ apportionment of tho costs of repaving a street in cities of the third class on blocks and lots abutting thereon according to the front foot, without regard to the question of fact whether or not the given parcel of land is benefited thereby to the extent of the assessment, and without affording ihe property owner an opportunity to question the existence of such benefit, is iu contravention of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution, and is therefore void.</p> <p>2. Same — Peculiar Benefits — Hearing.</p> <p>The only theory of law under which the cost of such street improvements can be imposed as a special tax on the abutting property rather than as a burden upon the entire municipal community, being the fad, that the local property is peculiarly benefited thereby, statutes or ordinances which arbitrarily assume that such local property is benefited in the proportion of the frontage thereof are invalid, unless the opportunity is afforded, at some period in the progress of assessment and the enforcement thereof, to be heard upon the question of fact as to whether or not the benefit is equal to the burden imposed, and as the supreme court: of the state holds that, notwithstanding no notice or hearing is provided therefor when the tax is imposed by the city council, the owner when sued for the enforcement of the special tax cannot bo heard to defend upon the ground that his properly was not in fact benefited, nor upon the question as to whether the apportionment of the costs is equal among the several lot owners, (he statute Is violative of the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution, and the whole (ax may be enjoined. Following- Village of Norwood v. Baker, 19 Sup. Ct. 187, 172 U. S. 269.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>