240 U.S. 55
SCOTUS
1916

Lead Opinion

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit to collect a tax for paving Broadway, a street in St. Louis, levied upon land of the defendants fronting, upon that street. The plaintiff, "defendant in error, did the work,-received an assignment of the tax and got a judgment for. the аmount. The only question here is whether the ordinance levying the tax under the charter of the city is -consistent with " the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The charter provides that one-fourth of the total cost shall be leviechupOn all the property fronting upon or adjoining the improvement according to frontage and three-fourths according to area upon all the property in the district ascertained as follows: “A line shall be drawn midway' between the street to.be improved and the next parallel or converging street on each side of the street to be improved, which line shail be the boundary of the district, éxcept as hereinafter provided, namely: If the property adjoining the street to be improved is divided into lots, the district line shall bе so drawn as to include the entire depth of all lots fronting on the street to be improved. . . j If there is no parаllel or converging street on either side of the street improved, the district lines shall be drawn three hundred feet frоm and parallel to the street to be improved; but if there be ‍​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‍a parallel or converging street on оne side of the street to be improved to fix and locate the district line, then the district line on the other side shall be drawn parallel to th'e street to be *58improved and at the average distance of the opposite district line so fixed and located.” The defendants’ land has a frontage on the west, side of Broadway of 1083.88 feet, out of a total in the district constituted said to be 4372 feet. It is ah undivided tract extending back nearly a thousand feet to. Church Road. On the south the-adjoining property was divided into lots of small depth, and on the opposite side of Broadway the next parallel street was about 300 feet from Broadway. The ordinance estаblishing the- taxing district treated Church Road as the next parallel street within the meaning of the charter, and included the defendants’ tract to a depth of between four and five hundred feet, while the small lots next, to it were included to only about 100 feet, the opposite lots to about 150 feét and another undivided tract on the east of Broad-way, was included by average distance to a depth of 240 feet. The ordinance establishing thesedines was hеld to follow the charter and to be consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court of the State. 259 Missouri, 153,

The legislature may create taxing districts to meet the expense of local improvements, and may fix the bаsis of taxation ‍​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‍without encountering the Fourteenth Amendment unless its action is palpably arbitrary" or a plain abuse. Houck v. Little River Drainage. District, 239 U. S. 254, 262. The front-foot rule has been sanctioned for the cost of .paving a street. In such a case it is not likely that the cost, will-exceed the benefit, and the law does not attempt an imaginary exactness or go bеyond, the reasonable. probabilities. French v. Barber Asphalt Co., 181 U. S. 324. Cass Farm Co. v. Detroit, 181 U.S. 396, 397. So in the case of‘a square bounded by principal streets the lаnd might ‍​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‍ibe assessed half way back from the improvement to the. next street. Louis. & Nash. R. R. v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 197 U. S. 430. But as is implied by Houck v. Little River Drainage District if the *59law is of such a character that there is no reasonable presumption that substantial justice generally will be done, but the probability is that the parties will be taxed disproportionately to each other and to the benefit conferred the law cannot stand against the complaint of one so taxed in fact. Martin v. District of Columbia, 205 U. S. 135, 139.

The city of St. Louis is shown by this case and by others in the Missоuri reports to contain tracts not yet cut into city lots, extending back from streets ‍​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‍without encountering a pаrallel street much farther than the distance within which paving could be supposed to be a benefit. See, for instance, Gilsonite Roofing Co. v. St. Louis Fair Association, 231 Missouri, 589. Granite Paving Co. v. Fleming, 251 Missouri, 210. Loth v. St. Louis, 257 Missouri, 399. Bush Construction Co. v. Withnell, 185 Mo. App. 408. The ordinance, following the charter as construed, established a line determining the proportions in which the tax was to be borne that, after running not a hundred feet from the street, leaped to near, five hundred feet when it encountered such a tract, and on the opposite side of the street was one hundred and fifty and two hundred and forty feet away. The differences were not basеd upon any consideration of difference in the benefits conferred but were established mechanically in obedience to the criteria that the charter directed to be applied. The defendants’ case is not an incidental result of a rule that as a whole and on the average may be expected tо work well, but of an ordinance that is a farrago of irrational irregularities throughout. It is enough to say that the ordinance following the orders of the charter is bad upon its. face as distributing a local tax in grossly unequal proрortions not because of special considerations applicable to the parcels tаxed but in blind obedience to a rule that requires the result. And it cannot be said that the ordinance as a whole mаy be regarded as an individual *60exception under a rule that promises justice in all ordinary-cases. The charter provisions as applied to a city like ‍​​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‍St. Louis must be taken to contemplate such ordinances under the construction given to it by the state courts.

March 20, 1916.

Judgment reversed.

. By stipulation of counsel the same judgment will be entered in case No. 210.





Lead Opinion

Memorandum on Petition for Rehearing,

Mr. Justice Holmes:

Our decision is limited, of course, to the particular ordinance before the court; to the. assessment of three quarters determined in the. mode described, and to those who, like the plaintiff in error, have suffered from the inequalities that have no justification, in law.

Motion for leave to file petition denied.-