CAMPBELL
v.
CITY OF OLNEY

U.S. | 1923-05-21
No. 266
262 U.S. 352 Supreme Court of the United States (1923) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 67 L. Ed. 1021 · 43 S. Ct. 559 · SCDB 1922-198 · 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2650
Cited by 20 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Campbell, a property owner in Olney, Texas, challenged a sidewalk assessment levied against his property, claiming the city lacked authority to assess the cost and that the assessment violated due process. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of the city, holding that because Campbell had been given statutory notice and an opportunity to challenge the assessment before the city council but failed to do so, and because state law had been complied with, no federal constitutional question was presented and the judgment would not be disturbed.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Butler

Mr. Justice Butler delivered the opinion of the Court.

A statute of Texas (Rev. Civ. Stats. 1911, c. 11, Arts. 1006-1017), empowered the City of Olney to lay sidewalks and to assess the cost against abutting property and owners. The City ordered the construction of sidewalks in front of four lots owned by plaintiff in error. An ordinance was passed making the cost of sidewalks a lien against abutting property, and providing for 20 days’ notice to the owner, before charging such cost personally against him or as a lien upon his property. Plaintiff in error was given notice in compliance with the statute and ordinance. He failed to appear or make objection to the assessment.

The statute provides that any property owner against whom or whose property such assessment has been made may within 20 days bring suit in any court having jurisdiction to set aside or correct the same or any proceeding with reference thereto, on account of any error or invalidity therein; but thereafter, he may not question the validity of such proceedings or assessment. No suit was brought by the plaintiff in error. The City issued its assessment certificate, declaring the cost of the sidewalks, $89.32, a charge against him and against the lots.

The statute further provides that if any such certificate shall recite that the proceedings have been regularly had, and that all prerequisites to the fixing of the assessment lien and personal liability have been complied with, it shall bq prima jade evidence of the facts so recited. The certificate contained these recitals. Plaintiff in error failed to pay, and the City brought suit in justice court. He answered in substance that the City had no ordinance authorizing the assessment; that it had not complied with the statute, and was therefore without authority to invoke it, and that its acts and conduct in making the assessment constituted a taking of his property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that there should have been a specific ordinance concerning this sidewalk and assessment.

The justice of the peace gave judgment in favor of plaintiff in error. The City appealed to the county court. At the trial, it offered the assessment certificate in evidence and rested. Plaintiff in error offered to prove that no - ordinance had been passed relative to the laying of this particular sidewalk; that he received the notice to appear, and went to the meeting place of the city council, and that the council had adjourned. He did not offer to prove any fact excusing his failure to appear before adjournment, or that he was denied a hearing. The county court found for the City. Its order denying a motion for a new trial recites that it is the highest appellate court to which the cause can be taken in the State of Texas because the amount involved is less than $100. The county judge allowed a writ of error bringing the case here.

The judgment of that court necessarily determines that the state laws were complied with. Unless a federal right is involved, the state court’s application of local laws will not be reviewed here. Hallinger v. Davis, 146 U. S. 314, 319; Peters v. Broward, 222 U. S. 483, 492; Armour Packing Co. v. Lacy, 200 U. S. 226, 234; Wade v. Travis County, 174 U. S. 499, 508; Osborne v. Florida, 164 U. S. 650, 654; Bardon v. Land & River Improvement Co., 157 U. S. 327, 331; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22, 32-33. Plaintiff in error had opportunity to be heard before the city council and was allowed a reasonable time after the assessment to bring suit to set it aside or to correct it or any proceeding with reference thereto. He failed to avail himself of the rights so given him by state laws. Their validity was not drawn in question. His claim that he was denied due process of law is not even colorable. Valley Farms Co. v. County of Westchester, 261 U. S. 155; Withnell v. Ruecking Construction Co., 249 U. S. 63, 69; Hibben v. Smith, 191 U. S. 310, 321, et seq.; French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U. S. 324, 334, 344, and cases cited. There is no federal question in the case.

The writ of error is dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Johnson C. Tibbetts v. Atwell Olson, 91 Fla. 824 (Fla. 1926)
    …Johnson, Rand Shoe Co., 51 Fla. 176, 40 South. Rep. 436; 50 L. R. A. 597, Notes; Pankey v. Ortiz, 26 N. M. 575, 195 Pac. Rep. 906, 30 A. L. R. 92; Wells Fargo & Co. v. State of Nevada, 248 U. S. 165, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 62; Campbell v. City of Olney, 262 U. S. 352, [*851] 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 559; Sharon v. Tucker, 144 U. S. 535, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 720; Ely v. New Mexico & A. R. Co., 129 U. S. 291, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293; Gill v. More, 200 Ala. 511, 76 South. Rep. 453; L. R. A. 1918F 599, 609 Notes; Belcher v. Mhoon…
  • Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1944)
    …ch comparable or shorter periods for resort to administrative relief as a prerequisite to proceeding in the courts have been held to be sufficient, see, e. g., Bellingham Bay & B. C. R. Co. v. New Whatcom, 172 U. S. 314 (10 days); Campbell v. Olney, 262 U. S. 352 (20 days); Wick v. Chelan Electric Co., 280 U. S. 108 (18 days); Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U. S. 589 (60 days); Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, 312 U. S. 126 (40 days). Revised Procedural Regulation No. 1, 7 Fed. Reg. 8961, authorized by § 2…
  • United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1946)
    …denial 'of the motion. Alberts v. United States, 21 F. 2d 968; Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U. S. 323, 329; Avent v. United States, 266 U. S. 127, 131; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184; Zucht v. King, 260 U. S. 174, 176; Campbell v. Olney, 262 U. S. 352; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Watson, 287 U. S. 86, 90, 92; Salinger v. United States, 272 U. S. 542, 544; Kryder v. Indiana, 305 U. S. 570; Cady v. Georgia, 323 U. S. 676.…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (11 total)

View all 11 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw