WEBSTER
v.
FARGO
Mr. Justice Shieas delivered the opinion of the court.
It is conceded, in this record, that thé plaintiff in error has no ground to complain of any discrimination attempted against him, either in the statutes of the State or in the proceedings thereunder, whereby the tax in question was assessed against his property. The sole contention on his behalf is that, under the decision of this court in the case of Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, all special assessments upon the basis of frontage are in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in that they may reihlt in the taking of property without due process of law.
But we agree with the. Supreme Court of North Dakota in holding that it is within the power of the legislature of the State to create special taxing districts, and to charge the cost of a local improvement, in whole or in part, upon the property in. said districts, either according to valuation, or superficial area, or frontage, and that it was not the intention of this court, in Norwood v. Baker, to hold otherwise.
It is unnecessary to enter upon an examination of the author- - ities, as that has recently been done in the case of French v. Barber Asphalt Company, ante, 324; and, upon the authority of that case, the judgment of the Supreme Court of North Dakota is
Affirmed.,
Mr. Justice IIablaN,
(with whom concurred Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice McKekNA,) dissenting.
The controlling question in this case is the same as is presented in French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., ante, 324, Wight v. Davidson, ante, 371, and Tonawanda v. Lyon, ante, 389, all just decided. For the reasons stated in my opinions in those cases, I dissent from the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Anderson v. The City of Ocala, 67 Fla. 204 (Fla. 1914)…sions rendered by the same court. See French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U. S. 325, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625; Wright v. Davidson, 181 U. S. 371, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 616; Tonawanda v. Lyon 181 U. S. 389, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609; Webster v. City of Fargo, 181 U. S. 394, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 623, 645; Cass Farm Co. v. City of Detroit, 181 U. S. 396, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 644, 645; Detroit v. Parker, 181 U. S. 399, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 624, 645; Shumate v. Heman, 181 U. S. 402, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 645. We would also refer to Shele…
-
Richardson v. Cary A. Hardee, 85 Fla. 510 (Fla. 1923)…arly within the power of the State. This conclusion is in accord with the holding of many other jurisdictions. Valley Farms Co. v. County of Westchester (N. Y.) Sup. Ct. U. S., Feb. 19, 1923; Houck v. Little River District, supra; Webster v. Fargo, 181 U. S. 394, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 623, 45 L. Ed. 912; Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, at p. 176, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 56, [*516] 41 L. Ed. 369; Dallas County Levee District v. Looney (Tex.) 207 S. W. Rep. 310; Dorsey, etc. v. Board of Director…1 / 2
-
Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 197 U.S. 430 (U.S. 1905)…. It now is established beyond permissible controversy that laws like the one before us are not contrary to the Constitution of the United States. Walston v. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578; French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U. S. 324; Webster v. Fargo, 181 U. S. 394; Cass Farm Co. v. Detroit, 181 U. S. 396; Detroit v. Parker, 181 U. S. 399; Chadwick v. Kelley, 187 U. S. 540, 543, 544; Schaefer v. Werling, 188 U. S. 516; Seattle v. Kelleher, 195 U. S. 351, 358. A statute like the present manifestly might lead t…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269 (U.S. 1898)