Wight v. Davidson

Citations

• 181 U.S. 371
• 21 S. Ct. 616
• 45 L. Ed. 900
• 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1369

Syllabus

<p>A constitutional right against unjust taxation is given for the protection of private property, but it may be waived by those affected, who consent to such action to their property as would otherwise be invalid.</p> <p>It was within the power of Congress^ by the act of March 3, 1899, c. 431, 30 Stat. 1344, to extend S Street in the District of Columbia, to order the opening and extension of the streets in question, and to direct the Commissioners of the District to institute and conduct, proceedings in the Supreme Court of the District to condemn the necessary land; and it was also competent for Congress, in said act, to provide that, of the amount found due and awarded as damages for and in respect of the land condemned for the opening of said streets, not less than one half thereof should be assessed by the jury in said proceedings against the .pieces and parcels of ground situate and lying on each side of the extension of said streets and also on all or any adjacent pieces or parcels of land which will be benefited by the opening of said streets as provided for in said act; and that the sums to be assessed against each lot or piece or parcel of ground should be determined and designated by the jury, and that, in determining what amount should be assessed against any particular piece or parcel of ground, the jury should take into consideration the situation of said lots, and the benefits that they might severally receive from the opening of said streets.</p> <p>The order of publication gave due notice of the filing of the petition in this case, and an opportunity to all persons interested to show cause why the prayer of the petition should riot be granted; and operated as a notice to all concerned of the pending appointment of a jury, and that proceedings would be had under the act of Congress.</p> <p>The act of March 3, 1899, was a valid act, and the proceedings thereunder were regular and constituted due process of law.</p> <p>The Court of Appeals, in regardi