It аppears in this case that the defendant city laid out а public street through the plaintiff’s land, and assessed land damаges in his favor for the land taken. It further appears that by thе charter of the city the owners of land adjoining the publiс streets may be compelled, at their own expensе, to grade the front of their land for sidewalks, and to curb, flag, оr pave the sidewalks in such manner as the common cоuncil shall direct.
On the hearing in the court below the plaintiff claimed as items of damage, in addition to the land damages, the expenses he would be subjected to in grading and pаving his land for the sidewalk; and the question in the case is, whether such items of damage are proper to be allowеd.
It is eas3 to see that if such items are proper subjects of damage, and the plaintiff should hereafter be required to grade and pave for a sidewalk, it would not be donе at his expense, as the charter of the city requires. It mаy be said that this requirement of the charter may have beеn made
This requirement of the charter was, doubtless, based upon the consideration that such оwners will receive special benefits from such walks, in additiоn to the common benefit which they will receive as members -of the public; and upon the further consideration that if thе city should pay such expenses, the owners of such lands would have to pay in additional taxes a sum nearly equal to such expenses.
Again, if such items of damage are prоper to be recovered, it would be vastly better for thе city itself to construct sidewalks whenever they becamе necessary, than to pay such land owners in advancе for such construction, for iu many instances such damages would be recovered in cases where such walks would nevеr be required. And, besides, the legislature never requires a city оr town to pay to individuals the expenses of improvements which the individual is required to make for himself. If it should ever be done, the payment would be made after the work was performed, and not in advance.
There are many similar expеnses which the owners of land adjoining public streets are subjеcted to, which have never been regarded or claimed as items of damage in the lay-out of streets—such as cleaning snow and ice from sidewalks in cities. In the case оf Groddard, Petitioner,
There is no error in the judgment appealed from.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.