Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Webster v. Fargo

Webster v. Fargo, 181 U.S. 394 (1901)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1901-04-29
Topic
general

Me. 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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Webster v. Fargo. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
68 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — Due Process It is within the power of a state legislature to create special taxing districts and to charge the cost of a local improvement, in whole or in part, upon the property within those districts, whether the assessment is apportioned according to valuation, superficial area, or frontage; such an apportionment by the foot-front rule does not, of itself, violate the Fourteenth Amendment. 181 U.S. 394 (citing Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269, and French v. Barber Asphalt Co., ante, 324)
  2. Constitutional Law — Due Process Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269, does not hold that all special assessments apportioned on the basis of frontage are unconstitutional as a taking of property without due process of law; consistent with that decision, an assessment levied by the foot-front rule under a valid state statute is not repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment where no discrimination against the owner is shown. 181 U.S. 394
WEBSTERv. FARGO,181 U.S. 394(1901)
21 S.Ct. 623
WEBSTERv. FARGO.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA.
No. 378.
Argued and submitted February 27, 1901.
Decided April 29, 1901.
It is within the power of the legislature of a State to create special taxing districts, and to charge the cost of local improvement, in whole or in part, upon the property in said districts, either according to valuation, or superficial area, or frontage; and it was not the intention of this court, inNorwoodv.Baker,172 U.S. 269, to hold otherwise.
THIS was an action brought by Mortimer Webster in the district
court in and for the county of Cass and State of North Dakota,
against the city of Fargo; James M. Fargo, as auditor of said
city; D.C. Ross, as treasurer, and G.J. Olson, as auditor, of
Cass County, in which the plaintiff sought to enjoin the
defendant from enforcing an assessment for grading and paving
against certain lots or pieces of land belonging to the
plaintiff, and abutting on the streets of the city of Fargo.
It was admitted, and, indeed, alleged, in the complaint, that
"each and every of the acts and proceedings required to be done
and taken by the statutes of said State of North Dakota in making
and return of said assessment, as aforesaid, were duly taken and
done," but it was alleged that the state statutes, under which
the work was done and the assessment made, were in violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States, in that they prescribed for paying for grading and paving
the streets, by an assessment upon abutting lots by the
foot-front rule.
The defendants demurred to the complaint upon the ground that
it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action. The trial court sustained the demurrer, and, as the
plaintiff declined to amend, entered a judgment dismissing the
complaint. From this judgment an appeal was taken to the Supreme
Court of the State of North Dakota, which court affirmed the
judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint. A writ
Page 395
of error from this court was thereupon allowed by the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota.
Mr. Seth Newmanfor plaintiff in error.Mr. Burleigh F.Spaldingwas on his brief.Mr. S.B. Pinney, Mr. John E. GreeneandMr. H.F. Millersubmitted on their brief.
MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS delivered the opinion of the court.
It is conceded, in this record, that the 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 ofNorwoodv.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 result 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, inNorwoodv.Baker, to hold otherwise.

It is unnecessary to enter upon an examination of the authorities, as that has recently been done in the case ofFrenchv.Barber Asphalt Company, ante, 324; and, upon the authority of that case, the judgment of the Supreme Court of North Dakota isAffirmed.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, (with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE McKENNA,) dissenting.
The controlling question in this case is the same as is presentedPage 396inFrenchv.Barber Asphalt Paving Co., ante, 324,Wightv.Davidson, ante, 371, andTonawandav.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.