| Pa. | May 7, 1879
Lead Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court, May 7th 1879.
A contract was made between W. W. Dickinson and the City of Philadelphia, on the 26th of November 1872, in which Mr. Dickinson undertook “ to grade, curb and pave Market street, from Forty-third street to the eastern end of the bridge over Cobb’s creek, at Sixty-third street.” The work was done, and after its completion, this proceeding was begun to enforce payment by Robert Craig, the defendant below, of the sum assessed on his property as his proportion of the cost. The claim was filed against a lot of ground on the south side of Market street, having a front on that street of three hundred feet, and extending in depth two hundred and fourteen feet to Ludlow street. The authority to make the contract, and the right to enforce the lien against the defendant’s land, are rested on the provisions of the Act of the 5th of April 1870, by which it was made the duty of the chief commissioner of highways, immediately after the interest of the West Chester Plank-road and Turnpike Company in the road-bed of Market street, should be surrendered to the city of Philadelphia, “ to proceed by
At the trial three offers were made on behalf of the defendant, and were rejected by the court. The first and second were propositions to prove that the defendant’s “ premises, against which this claim was filed, are situated in a rural district in the city of Philadelphia, and that a large part of Market street, from Forty-third to Sixty-third street, passes through rural and farm property, now used for farm purposesand “ that all the property fronting on Market street, from Forty-third to Sixty-third, not exempt from taxation, is assessed as such rural property and farm land.” It was decided in the case of Washington Avenue, 19 P. F. Smith 352, that an Act of Assembly authorizing a local assessment for a general public benefit was unconstitutional, and that, while the assessment of a tax for improving streets in towns, in proportion to the frontage on the street, is a reasonable exercise of the taxing power according to the benefits received, yet such a rule applies only to cities and large towns, whe^e, from the density of the population and the small size of the lots, there is a reasonable certainty of arriving at a true result. In Seely v. The City of Pittsburgh, 1 Norris 360, which was a scire facias on a municipal claim for frontage tax, the facts were disclosed in a case stated. It was agreed that the line of the highway ran in part through the rural or suburban part of the city, and that the defendant’s premises were situated in that rural district. The Act of the 2d of April 1870, which had provided for the improvement and authorized the assessment, was held to be unconstitutional, so far as it applied to lands in such a district. “ The blending of town and country, of city lots and farm lands,” was pronounced by Agnew, C. J., to be “ so plainly, palpably, rankly and ruinously unjust” as to be “ void as against the right of property as protected by the Bill of Eights.” These cases have been followed in Kaiser v. Weise, 4 Norris 366, and recognised in Bidwell v. The City of Pittsburgh, Id. 412. A rule of law settled by this court, in the Western District of the state, must necessarily prevail as a rule of law in the Eastern District. The evidence was legitimate and should have been received.
The third proposition was to prove “that the widening of Market street was not called for by any reason, save as a public imr provement, and to keep a grand avenue through the city of a uniform width to.the Delaware county line.” Perhaps the terms
A complete system for the improvement of this particular highway was provided by the Act of the 5th of April 1870. The consent of a majority of the property-owners on the line, the selection by them of a contractor, the passage of an ordinance by the councils, and the advertisements under the ordinance of 1862, were all dispensed with. Previous laws and existing ordinances were to be applied only in the collection of the cost of the work. Nothing appears in the record to show that notice was not given to owners, or that there was neglect to take “ all other requisite proceedings to open the street.”
1 In the argument of the fourth assignment of error, the counsel for the defendant discussed the cause as if in the trial the Act of the 19th of April 1843 had been held applicable to this claim. That act, which limited a defence to a claim to a denial that work had been done or materials furnished, to proof of value, or to proof of payment or a release, extended only to the incorporated districts of the county of Philadelphia. Was this part of Market street ever included in such a district ? It seems certain that it was not in 1843. It could scarcely have been in West Philadelphia, which was chartered as a borough in 1844, and incorporated as a district in 1851. Was it within the district of Belmont, which was incorporated in 1853 ? The boundaries describing that district in the incorporating act indicate that it embraced no territory south of a line protracted westwardly from the western end of the northern boundary of West Philadelphia. It has sometimes been said that the Act of 1843 has been extended to the whole city by an ordinance of councils, under the authority of the proviso to the 44th section of the Consolidation Act of the 2d of February 1874. But no instance is recalled in which such an ordinance has been produced. The question was not raised in the trial, and is unimportant now. But it may become material hereafter.
Substantially, the defendant’s points were answered, and in that, as the case was tried, no mistake or inaccuracy has been discovered.
Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.
Dissenting Opinion
filed the following dissenting opinion:
Had this case stopped where Seély v. The City of Pittsburgh ends I would have allowed it to pass with a mere dissent. But as it is another step forward I desire to .place upon record my reasons for such dissent. They are:
1st. The Act of Assembly under which Market street was widened and paved was an exercise of the taxing power of the Commonwealth. This power is lodged by the constitution in the legislative department of the government, subject to the single restriction that “all taxes shall be uniform upon the-same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax.” Beyond this there is no constitutional restriction upon this power. It is bounded only by the necessities of the state and the will of the people. It was within the recognised powers of the legislature to enact that Market street should be widened and paved, and the cost thereof assessed upon the property-owners fronting on said street. Whether the power was exercised wisely is a matter with which we have no concern. It is not a judicial question.
2d. The legislature having decided that the cost of said improvement shall be assessed in accordance with the foot-front rule, we are bound to assume that such rule is just until the contrary appears. It has been assumed and asserted that such rule is unjust and oppressive as applied to rural property, but it has never been proved. On the contrary the arguments against it have been based upon the assumption that street improvements through rural property are oppressive and therefore unconstitutional. There was no attempt made in the court below to show that the foot-front rule was unjust in its application to the property of the defendant. The offer to show that the property on Market street from Forty-third to Sixty-third street was assessed as rural was irrelevant unless we assume that it is unconstitutional to open streets through rural property. There is nothing in the constitution to warrant such assumption, and to adopt it would be -to put a stop to the future growth of towns and cities. Street improvements of necessity precede building improvements, and rural property can only be converted into urban by opening, grading and paving the highways. Whether a street is ripe for such improvements is a legislative, not a judicial question.
3d. I am unable to see what a jury have to do with questions of power or constitutional law. The law does not confer upon a jury in a common-law7 proceeding the authority to revise the discretion of the legislature, or to decide when streets shall be opened. The evidence rejected amounts to this, if it amounts to anything. This clearly appears from the third specification, which is, “ That the widening of Market street was not called for by any reason, save as a public improvement, and to keep a grand avenue through the city of a uniform width to the Delaware county line.” One jury
4th. If the courts may thus interfere with the taxing power of the Commonwealth, I am unable to see where it is to stop. It is impossible under any system of taxation that perfect equality shall exist. In framing general laws there will always be cases of individual hardship. If a citizen may decline to pay his general tax, or his special tax in the way of assessments (and they rest substantially upon the same principle), until the question of the sufficiency of his benefits may be settled in a common-law proceeding by a jury, we have introduced a principle into bur jurisprudence which in my judgment is subversive of law and good government.
5th. I am opposed to the judiciary absorbing the powers of its co-ordinate deparments of the government.
The foregoing sufficiently indicates my objections to this judgment. I have no desire to elaborate. With profound respect for the views of the majority of the court, I must be allowed to express the opinion that the practical difficulties in the way of this line of decision will hereafter be found to be very serious, if not wholly insurmountable.