The Virginia Law Register Volume 1 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 edition. Excerpt: ...v. Detroit, 181 U. S. 396, 45 L. Ed. 914, and in Detroit v. Parker, 181 L'. S. 399, 45 L. Ed. 917, in which last case it again appeared that no provision was made for a hearing as to benefits; in Shumate v. Heman, 181 U. S. 402, 45 L. Ed. 922, an assessment by frontage, without notice or hearing, for the cost of a sewer was sustained; and in Farrell '. West Chicago Park Commissioners, 181 LT. S. 404, 45 L. Ed. 924, approval was given to an assessment upon abutters of by far the greater part of the cost of "creating and improving" a boulevard in Chicago. Later decisions have continued the Court's liberal attitude towards such assessments In Voight v. Detroit (1902), 184 LT. S. 115, 46 L. Ed. 459, the assessment was for two-thirds of the cost of opening a street. The complaint was that while a hearing was afiorded on the question of benefits, there was no hearing as to what lands should be included in the assessment district. The assessment was sustained. In Goodrich v. Detroit (1902), 184 L'. S. 432, 46 L. Ed. 627, it was held that it was necessary to give notice only to those whose property was taken, not to those against whom assessments for benefits might be made; the Court remarking that in the case of a public school, benefiting a whole district of a city, it would be "an intolerable burden" to require personal notice to all the taxpayers of that district. An assessment by frontage of three-fourths of the cost of paving a street was sustained in C/zudtvick v. Kelly (1903), 187 U. S. 5-10, 47 L. Ed. 293; and the entire cost of similar paving was held properly imposed on the abutters in Schaefer v. Werling (1903), 188 U. S. 516, 47 L. Ed. 570, though in that case the Court pointed out that the State Court had...