Summary

Portrait of Horace Harmon Lurton Horace Harmon Lurton Briscoe v. Rudolph — Opinion of the Court

If, on the other hand, it is meant that, as matter of fact, the assessment against owners assumed to be benefited is so excessive as compared to actual benefits as to amount to a taking of such excess for public purpose without compensation, then there is no evidence in the record bearing upon the subject. The question of the excessiveness of a special assessment for benefits resulting from a public street improvement is one of fact.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Horace Harmon Lurton Horace Harmon Lurton Briscoe v. Rudolph — Opinion of the Court

When, as under the act for the extension of Rhode Island avenue, only one half of the cost is to be charged upon lot owners within the improvement district, and that upon each lot owner in proportion to the benefit his property has received, the question of whether one such owner has been assessed beyond his proportion is one of fact, and does not touch the validity of the improvement act.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Horace Harmon Lurton Horace Harmon Lurton Briscoe v. Rudolph — Opinion of the Court

For this reason, we shall avail ourselves of the provision in the 21st rule of this court, by which we reserve the right to 'notice a plain error,' not because we assume the errors assigned in the brief to be 'plain,' but that questions of such gravity may not be passed without notice, in view of the practice heretofore prevailing in the courts of the District of Columbia.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature