Cass Farm Co. v. City of Detroit We have recently held that it was not the intention of the 14th Amendment to subvert the systems of the states pertaining to general and special taxation; that that Amendment legitimately operates to extend to the citizens and residents of the states the same protection against arbitrary state legislation affecting life, liberty, and property as is afforded by the 5th Amendment against similar legislation by Congress, and that the Federal courts ought not to interfere when what is complained of is the enforcement of the settled laws of the state applicable to all persons in like circumstances and conditions, but only when there is some abuse of law amounting to confiscation of property or deprivation of personal rights, as was instanced in the case of Norwood v. Baker. French v. Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U. S., ante. 625, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625: Tonawanda v. Lyon, 181 U. S., ante, 609, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609; Wight v. Davidson, 181 U. S., ante, 616, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 616. We are not convinced, by anything appearing in this record, that the complainants have entitled themselves to the interference of this court. As held by the supreme court of their own state, the proceedings to enforce the payment of their proportion of a common burden have been conducted in due regard to the forms and provisions of the statutes and ordinances applicable to the facts of the case, and disclose no departure, actual or intended, from constitutional principles. The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan is affirmed. CASS FARM COMPANY, Limited, and Others, Plffs. in Err., v. CITY OF DETROIT and Others (No. 508).* CITY OF DETROIT and Others, Appts., v. RALZEMOND A. PARKER (No. 411). MORTIMER WEBSTER, Plff. in Err., v. CITY OF FARGO and Others (No. 378). JOHN L. SHUMATE, Plff. in Err., v. AUGUST HEMAN (No. 550). JAMES L. WORMLEY, Plff. in Err., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (No. 101). ANNA P. HOOVER ALLEN and Others, Plffs. in Err., v. DisTRICT OF COLUMBIA (No. 102). THOMAS F. FARRELL et al., Plff. in Err., v. WEST CHICAGO PARK COMMISSIONERS (No. 201). MR. JUSTICE HARLAN (with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA) dissenting: The controlling question in each of the above cases is the *See note to French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., ante, p. 1; note to Fay v. Springfield, 2 Mun. Corp. Cas. 183; note to Adams v. City of Shelbyville, 3 Mun. Corp. Cas. 652. Shumate v. Heman same as is presented in French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U. S., ante, 625, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625, Wight v. Davidson, 181 U. S., ante, 616, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 616, and Tonawanda v. Lyon, 181 U. S. —, ante, 609, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609, just decided. For the reasons stated in my opinion in those cases, I dissent from the opinions and judgments of the court in the above cases. JOHN L. SHUMATE, Plff. in Err., v. AUGUST HEMAN. [21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 645.] Constitutional Law-Local Assessments-Front-Foot Rule.* - This case is determined by the decision in French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Company, ante, 625, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625. In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri to review a decision affirming a judgment enforcing payment of a special tax bill for construction of a sewer. Affirmed. See same case below, sub nom. Heman v. Allen, 156 Mo. 534, 57 S. W. 559. The facts are stated in the opinion. Messrs. G. B. Webster, Hiram J. Grover, and Hamilton Grover for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Robert E. Collins, David Goldsmith, and H. P. Rodgers for defendant in error. MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court: This was a suit brought in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis by August Heman to enforce payment of a special tax bill issued in his favor by that city for the construction of a sewer in what is called Euclid avenue sewer district. The plaintiff recovered a judgment, and the defendants, who were owners of property assessed for the cost of making said sewer, appealed to the supreme court of Missouri, where the judgment of the trial court was affirmed, the case being reported as Heman v. Allen, 156 Mo. 534. 57 S. W. 559, and after such affirmance the defendant brought the case to this court by writ of error. The only question which is open to our consideration upon this record is the contention of the plaintiff in error that the provisions of the charter of the city of St. Louis, the ordinances of the municipal assembly, and the contract with the defendant in error, made thereunder, and the assessment against the property of the plaintiff in error for the cost of the construction of said sewer, were null, void, and of no effect for the reason that they were repugnant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as construed *See note to French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., ante, p. 1; note to Fay v. Springfield, 2 Mun. Corp. Cas. 183; note to Adams v. City of Shelbyville, 3 Mun. Corp. Cas. 652. Wormley v. District of Columbia. Allen v. Same and applied in the case of Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 43 L. Ed. 443, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 187. This contention has been considered and determined, under a similar state of facts, by this court, in the recent case of French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. in error to the supreme court of the state of Missouri (181 U. S. —, ante, 625, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625), and upon the authority of that case the judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is affirmed. For dissenting opinion, see Cass Farm Co. v. Detroit, 181 U. S., ante, 645, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 645. JAMES L. WORMLEY, Plff. in Err., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ANNA P. HOOVER ALLEN and Others, Plffs. in Err., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Submitted November 12, 1900. Decided April 29, 1901.) [21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609.] Constitutional Law-Assessments for Improvements.* In Error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia to review decisions sustaining assessments. Affirmed. See same cases below, 15 App. D. C. 58, 70. Messrs. D. W. Baker, John C. Gittings, and Malcolm Hufty for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. A. B. Duvall and C. A. Brandenburg for defendant in error. PER CURIAM: And now, April 29, 1901, the judgments in the foregoing cases are affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Parsons v. District of Columbia, 170 U. S. 45. 42 L. Ed. 943, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 521, and French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U. S., post, 625, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625. For dissenting opinion, see Cass Farm Co. v. Detroit, 181 U. S. —, post, 645, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 645. *See note to French v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., ante, p. 1; note to Fay v. Springfield, 2 Mun. Corp. Cas. 183; note to Adams v. City of Shelbyville, 3 Mun. Corp. Cas. 652. THOMAS F. FARRELL et al., Plffs. in Err., v. WEST CHICAGO PARK COMMISSIOners. (Argued March 18, 19, 1901. Decided April 29, 1901.) [21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609.] Constitutional Law-Assessments for Improvements.*-This case is determined by the decision rendered in the case of French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Company, post, 625, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625. In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois to review a decision sustaining assessments for the improvement of an avenue or boulevard. Affirmed. See same case below, 182 Ill. 250, 55 N. E. 325. The facts are stated in the opinion. Messrs. George W. Wilbur and Newton A. Partridge for plaintiffs in error. Messrs. R. A. Childs, Francis A. Riddle, and Charles Hudson for defendants in error. MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinon of the court: This case originated in proceedings to create and improve an avenue or thoroughfare known as Douglas boulevard, in the town of West Chicago. The full history of those proceedings, contained in the statement of facts made by this court in the case of Lombard v. West Chicago Park Comrs. recently decided, 181 U. S. 33, ante, 507, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 507, renders it unnecessary to repeat them here. And the legal questions involved were so fully discussed in that case, and in French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. 181 U. S. —, post, 625, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625, and Wight v. Davidson, 181 U. S., post, 616, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 616, cognate cases decided at the present term of this court, that we are relieved from their further consideration. The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois is affirmed. For dissenting opinion, see Cass Farm Co. v. Detroit, 181 U. S., post, 645, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 645. TOWN OF TONAWANDA and John K. Patton, Appts., v. (Argued February 25, 26, 27, 1901. Decided April 29, 1901.) [21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609.] Constitutional Law-Assessment for Pavement-Rule of Frontage.* The apportionment of the entire cost of a street pavement upon the abutting lots according to their frontage, without any judicial inquiry *See note to French v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., ante, p. 1; note to Fay v. Springfield, 2 Mun. Corp. Cas. 183; note to Adams v. City of Shelbyville, 3 Mun. Corp. Cas. 652. Town of Tonawanda v. Lyon as to their value or the benefits they receive, may be authorized by the legislature; and this will not constitute a taking of property without due process of law. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York to review a decree restraining the collection or enforcement of assessments for paving. Reversed. Statement by MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS: This was the case of a bill in equity filed in the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of New York on September 9, 1899, by James B. Lyon, a citizen of the state of New York, against the town of Tonawanda, a municipal corporation of that state, and John K. Patton, supervisor of said town. The object of the bill was to restrain the defendants from enforcing payment of a certain assessment against tracts or parcels of land belonging to the complainant, situated in the town of Tonawanda, and abutting on Delaware street in said town. The assessment was levied against said tracts of land to meet the expense of grading and paving said street, in pursuance of the provisions of statutes of the state of New York and of an order of the town board of Tonawanda. The principal matter complained of was that the method of meeting the expense of grading and paving the said street was by assessing the same against the lots abutting on the street according to frontage thereon, and that the statutes and proceedings thereunder, which provided for that method, were contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, in that thereby the land of the complainant would be taken for public use without just compensation, and he be deprived of his property without due process of law. The case came on for final hearing on bill, answer, and a stipulation of facts, and on January 17, 1900, the circuit court decreed, among other things, as follows: "That those parts of the acts of the legislature of the state of New York mentioned and set forth in plaintiff's bill of complaint, to wit, of chapter 550 of the laws of the state of New York for the year 1893, and of chapter 816 of the laws of the state of New York for the year 1895, which authorize and require the town board of said town to levy the assessment for the entire expense of paving said Delaware street, set forth in the bill of complaint, upon the complainant's said parcels of land described in said bill of complaint and the other lands fronting on said Delaware street, and the acts of the said defendant, the town of Tonawanda, by its town. board, mentioned in said bill of complaint, in levying said assessments upon said lands according to the rule prescribed in said acts of said legislature, to wit, in the proportion which the number of front feet of each of said lots and parcels of land bounding and fronting on said Delaware street in front of which said improvement of paving said street was made, and which are assessed therefor in and by said assessment, |