*1 394
Statement of the Case.
WEBSTER v. FARGO. OOURT THE SÜPREME THE OF STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA. Argued and submitted February 27, April 1901. Decided 29,1901. the of a It is within State to create charge the and to cost of whole or the or su- perficial area, frontage; and it was not the intention of this to hold Norwood otherwise. was an action Mortimer brought Webster in the By dis- This in and for the trict court of Cass and State of North Dakota, ; James M. Fargo as auditor Fargo, as Eoss, of said D. C. and G. city; treasurer, Olson, J. as au- of Cass in which ditor, County, plaintiff sought the defendant from an assessment for enforcing and grading certain lots of land to the paving against pieces belonging on the streets of the abutting plaintiff, Fargo. It admitted, and, indeed, alleged, that complaint, “ each the acts to be done every proceedings required of said and taken State of Dakota in by mak- .North and return of said as assessment, were aforesaid, ing duly (cid:127)and but-it that done,” state alleged statutes/under the work was which assessment were-in made, violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United that they prescribed paying grad- streets, anby assessment lots abutting ing the foot-front rule. The defendants demurred to the the ground complaint upon did not state facts á sufficient constitute cause of ac- The trial court tion. sustained the as the demurrer, and, plain- tiff declined to entered amend, the com- judgment dismissing From this was taken plaint. appeal Court the State North which court affirmed Dakota, district A writ dismissing complaint. v. FARGO.
WEBSTER McKenna, dissenting. Habían, Justices White the Chief allowed by from this court was of error thereupon North Dakota. of the State of Justice of *2 in F. error. Mr. Burleigh Mr. Seth Newman plaintiff his brief. was o.n Spalding and Mr. Miller E. Greene H. F. Mr. John
Mr. S. B. Pinney, on their submitted brief. of the court.
Me. Justice Shieas delivered the opinion in in thé error has It is this conceded, record, no to discrimination any attempted against ground complain in either in or him, the State in assessed the tax thereunder, question is under that, his The on his behalf sole contention property. Baker, the decision of in this court the case Norwood v. all 269, basis are special frontage assessments upon in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to Constitution of the United in that reihlt they may taking without due law. property process But we with the. Court of agree North Dakota that it is within the of the holding the State to create the cost of a charge in whole or in in. upon area, superficial and that it not the intention of this frontage, Norwood v. to hold otherwise. -
It is to enter unnecessary examination the author- as that has been in the ities, recently v. French Barber ante, Asphalt Company, 324; and, author of that ity case, Court of North Dakota is
Affirmed., (with whom concurred Me. Justice Me. Justice IIablaN, White and Me. Justice McKekNA,) dissenting. this case is the same as is controlling question presented 1900.
Opinion of the Court. v. Co., in French Barber Asphalt Paving ante, 324, v. Wight Tonawanda Davidson, ante, v. all Lyon, ante, 389, just For the reasons decided. stated in those my opinions cases, I dissent from the of the court this case. FARM
CASS COMPANY v. DETROIT. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. Argued February 25, 26, 27, [1] Decided April 29, 1901. court holds and Paving 'The adheres its Co., decisions in French v. Lyon, ante, 371, Wight v. Tonawanda Davidson, ante, 389, nothing in finds *3 complainants record show have entitled themselves its interference. is stated in the the court. case opinion M. in error. Henry Mr. Campbell Mr. E. O.D. Tarsney Mr. Timothy Joslyn Detroit. delivered the court. Mr. Justice Shiras A bill in ivas filed September, circuit equity State Wayne, court for the Cass Michigan, others, owners of lands Farm Limited, lying Company, avenue in the Detroit, Second abutting upon the board of Alcatraz works, city, public Paving Company, sought and,to avenue, Detroit from Second have paving portion reference taken with to said declared void. the circuit
There was a decree in favor of complain- ants, thereupon' where decree trial court State Michigan,