WILLOUGHBY
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO

U.S. | 1914-11-16
No. 66
235 U.S. 45 Supreme Court of the United States (1914) Caution
Also reported at: 59 L. Ed. 123 · 35 S. Ct. 23 · 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1034 · SCDB 1914-025
Cited by 14 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The City of Chicago took property from the owners in 1893 to widen a street, paid damages to the original owners, and then sought to assess the current property owners for betterments resulting from the street improvement through a new assessment ordinance in 1910. The Supreme Court held that purchasers of property take subject to the same assessment liabilities that would have attached to the original owners, and that questions regarding state statutory authority for such proceedings and the relative amounts of damages versus benefits are matters of state law interpretation not subject to federal court review. The Court dismissed the property owners' constitutional challenge based on the Due Process Clause and Contracts Clause, finding no deprivation of vested rights where the state court's statutory interpretation had plausible grounding.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

In 1893 a portion of certain land now belonging to the plaintiffs in error was taken by Chicago for the widening of a street, and the damages to the owners were fixed by judgment in due form. Afterwards an assessment for betterments by reason of the change was laid upon certain lands in this neighborhood including the lots in question and was confirmed as to the other land. At the trial with regard to these lots it was contended by the owner and ruled in the lower court that the matter was concluded by the first judgment. This ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court of the State, Chicago v. Mecartney, 216 Illinois, 377, but by the failure of the City to file the remanding order within two years the assessment upon these lots failed. In January, 1910, the City passed an ordinance for a new assessment, the object of which' was to reach these lots, and,a new petition was filed. The Supreme Court of the State held that the validity of the assessment did not depend on the validity of the ordinance; that the petition was warranted by the former proceedings, and that a judgment for the amount should be affirmed. 249 Illinois, 249.

The error assigned is that the property of the plaintiffs in error is taken without due process of law and that the obligation of their contracts is impaired (they having purchased before this supplementary proceeding was begun), contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment and Art. I, § 10 of the Constitution of the United States. There is a motion to dismiss upon which we must dispose of the case. The objection which is urged is that there was no statutory authority for this proceeding and that the assessment was imposed by mere judicial fiat that could riot have been anticipated and that was without warrant of law. If there were anything in this objection it was obvious from the beginning and as it was not taken at the trial it was not open in the Supreme Court of the State and could not be considered here. Hulbert v. Chicago, 202 U. S. 275. It is obvious too that the State could have authorized the proceeding followed here, which ordinarily is the only question to be considered by this court. Missouri v. Dockery, 191 U. S. 165.

If the assessment could have been levied against the original owners of the land, purchasers took subject to the same liability. Seattle v. Kelleher, 195 U. S. 351. The question whether it could have been levied' if the land had not been sold depended upon the construction of state statutes, as to which, we follow the decision of the state court'. Even if the court had overruled earlier decisions it would have interfered with no vested rights of the plaintiffs in error. Knox v. Exchange Bank, 12 Wall. 379, 383. Sauer v. New York, 206 U. S. 536. Moore-Mansfield Construction Co. v. Electrical Installation Co., 234 U. S. 619, 626. But it does not appear to have done so, and although its decision may have been unexpected, there was plausible ground for it in the statutes. We go no further, because there is no question before us of the kind that was before the court in Muhlker v. New York & Harlem R. R. Co., 197 U. S. 544, and Tampa Water Works Co. v. Tampa, 199 U. S. 241, 243, and in circumstances like these it is not within our province to inquire whether the construction was right. It is objected that less was allowed for the land taken than was charged for the benefit, but it is quite possible that the benefit was greater than the loss, and we cannot inquire into the fact.

Writ of error dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Brinkerhoff-Faris Tr. & Sav. Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1930)
    …, 503; Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm., 255 U. S. 445, 448; Fox River Paper Co. v. Railroad Comm., 274 U. S. 651, 655. Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 112; Patterson v, Colorado, 205 U. S. 454, 461; Willoughby v. Chicago, 235 U. S. 45, 50; O’Neil v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 242 U. S. 20, 26-7; Dunbar v. City of New York, 251 U. S. 516, 519; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 261 U. S. 114, 118; Tidal Oil Co. v. Flanagan, 263 U. S. 444, 450; American Railway Express Co. v. Ken…
  • ST. Louis & Kan. City Land Co. v. Kan. City, 241 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1916)
    …under the state law, are state questions as to which the decision of the state court is controlling. Long Island Water Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U. S. 685; Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674, 683; King v. Portland, 184 U. S. 61; Willoughby v. Chicago, 235 U. S. 45. So, the ruling as to the effect, with respect to the supplemental proceeding, of the decree in a court of the same State holding the prior assessments void for want of the required notice, as to the complainant- in that suit and certain intervenors…
  • Ramapo Water Co. v. City of N.Y., 236 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1915)
    …and only when coupled with notice to the landowners concerned. We should be more inclined to follow Sauer v. New York, 206 U. S. 536. Moore-Mansfield Construction Co. v. Electrical Installation Co., 234 U. S. 619, 626. Willoughby [*585] v. Chicago, 235 U. S. 45. But as we have said, nothing short of a specific decision of the Court of Appeals would make us believe that the act of 1895 gave to the plaintiff, without notice to landowners or other preliminary, a vested right, seemingly unlimited in time, to e…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (20 total)

View all 20 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw