Lansing v. City of Lincoln

49 N.W. 650, 32 Neb. 457, 1891 Neb. LEXIS 312
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1891
StatusPublished

This text of 49 N.W. 650 (Lansing v. City of Lincoln) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lansing v. City of Lincoln, 49 N.W. 650, 32 Neb. 457, 1891 Neb. LEXIS 312 (Neb. 1891).

Opinion

Maxwell, J.

This is an appeal in equity from the district court of Lancaster county. It is alleged in the petition that “The said plaintiff James F. Lansing is the owner in fee simple and in possession of lots ‘A/ ‘B,’ and ‘E’ of subdivision of lots 1 and 2 in block 40, in said city of Lincoln, Lancas[459]*459ter county, Nebraska; the said plaintiff Adeline R. School-craft is the owner in fee simple and in possession of lot ‘C’ of subdivision of lots 1 and 2 in block 40, in said city of Lincoln; the said plaintiff Mary Geiser is the owner in fee simple and in possession of lot ‘D’ in said subdivision of lots 1 and 2 in said block 40, in said city of Lincoln; that said lots 1 and 2 in said block 40, in said city of Lincoln, were originally each fifty feet in width and 142 feet in in depth, and were bounded on the north by ‘P’ in said street in said city, and on the south by the alley in said block 40; that prior to the 20th day of September, 1880, said original lots 1 and 2 in said block 40 had been, by Theodore S. Ganter, the owner, sold out in parcels by metes and bounds at different times to different parties; that on said 20th day of September, 1880, the then owners of said different parts and parcels of said original lots 1 and 2 did, in accordance with the provisions of section 104 of an act of the legislature of Nebraska, entitled ‘An act to provide for the organization, government, and powers of cities and villages,’ approved March 1, 1879, under which said act said defendant was then organized and doing business, make and execute a plat of the subdivision of said lots 1 and 2 in said block 40, and on.said 20th day of September, 1880, filed the same for record in the office of the clerk of said Lancaster county, and said plat thereby became a part of the recorded plat of said city of Lincoln, defendant herein, a copy of which said plat of the said subdivision of said lots 1 and 2 in said block 40 is hereto attached, marked ‘ Exhibit A,’ and made a part of this petition ; that said lots ‘A’ and ‘B,’ belonging to said Lansing, plaintiff, and said lot ‘ C,’ belonging to said Schoolcraft, plaintiff, are each fifty-five feet north and distant from the north line and nearest point of said alley in said block 40; that said lot ‘E,’ belonging to said plaintiff Lansing, and lot ‘I),’ belonging to said plaintiff Geiser, are each twenty-five feet north and distant from the north line and nearest [460]*460point of said alley in said block 40; that neither said lot ‘A’ nor B’ nor ‘C’ nor ‘D’ nor ‘E’ of said subdivision of said lots 1 and 2 in said block 40, belonging to these plaintiffs as aforesaid, is adjacent to or abuts upon said alley in said block 40; that no one of said lots of said subdivision belonging to said plaintiffs, to-wit, Lots ‘A,’ ‘B/ C/ ‘D,’ and ‘ E,’ is accessible from said alley in said block 40, and no one of said lots ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C/ ‘D,’ and ‘E/ aforesaid, has access to said alley, and that not said ‘A’ nor ‘B’ nor ‘CP nor ‘D’ nor ‘E’ of said subdivision of said lots 1 and 2 in said block 40 is specially benefited in any sum whatever, or in any manner whatever, by reason of the grading, curbing, guttering, and paving of said alley in said block 40, and cannot use or have any use whatever of said alley in said block 40.

“That said defendant, the city of Lincoln, by its mayor and council heretofore, to-wit, on or about the 17th day of April, 1887, passed an ordinance creating alley paving districts, and by ordinance passed about April 17, 1887, therein and thereby ordered the grading, curbing, and paving of said alley in said block 40; that in pursuance thereof said alley in said block 40 has been graded, curbed, and paved, but in no place nor way whatever does said grading, curbing, or paving of said alley in said block 40 specially benefit the said lots ‘A/ ‘B,’ ‘C/ ‘L,’ and ‘E’ of said subdivision of said lots 1 and 2, block 40, belonging as aforesaid to these plaintiffs, nor abut thereon, and is not adjacent thereto; that thereafter, to-wit on or about the 23d day of October, 1889, the said defendant, the city of Lincoln, by its mayor and council, passed an ordinance levying a special tax and assessment to cover the cost of curbing, grading, and paving said alley in said block 40; that in said last named ordinance said defendant, the city of Lincoln, by its mayor and council, adjudged, determined and established that said lot ‘A’ of said subdivision of said lots 1 and '2, block 40 aforesaid had been and was [461]*461specially benefited to the amount of $26.97, by reason of the paving of said alley in said block 40; that said lot ‘B’ of said subdivision had been and was specially benefited by reason of paving said alley in said block 40 to the amount of $26.97; that said ‘C’ therein, as aforesaid, had been and was specially benefited by reason of the paving of said alley in said block 40 to the amount of $26.97; that said lot ‘D’ therein as aforesaid had been and was by reason of paving said alley in said block 40 specially benefited to the amount of $42.57, and that said lot ‘ E ’ as aforesaid therein was and had been specially benefited by reason of said paving of said alley in said block 40 to the amount of $46.80, and therein and thereby said defendant, the city of Lincoln, by its mayor and council, levied and assessed upon said plaintiffs said lots in said subdivision of said lots 1 and 2 in said block 40 to and towards paying the cost of paving said alley in said block 40 as follows, to-wit :

“Upon lot ‘A’ therein, belonging to plaintiff Lansing, the sum of $26.97.
“Upon lot ‘B’ therein,'belonging to said plaintiff Lansing, the sum of $26.97.
“Upon lot ‘C’ therein, belonging to said plaintiff Schoolcraft, the sum of $26.97.
“ Upon lot ‘ D therein, belonging to said plaintiff Geiser, the sum of $42.57.
“Upon lot‘E' therein, belonging to said plaintiff Lansing, the sum of $46.80.
“ The said tax and special assessment being therein alleged to be the exact special benefit to the said lots so assessed by reason of paving said alley in said block 40.
“ That said plaintiff Lansing, for himself, alleges that the said special tax and assessment upon his said lots A/ ‘ B,’ and ‘ E/ of said subdivision of said lots 1 and 2 in said block 40, aggregating the sum of $100.14, levied upon his said property for and towards paying the cost of paving [462]*462said alley in said block 40; and said plaintiff School-craft, for herself, alleges that said assessment of $26.67 upon her said property above described for paving of said - alley in said block 40; and said plaintiff Geiser alleges that said special tax and assessment of $42.57 levied upon her said property above described for cost of paving said alley in said block 40; each plaintiff herein alleges that said assessment upon plaintiff’s property as aforesaid is utterly illegal and without any authority whatever, and is in conflict with and in violation of the provisions of law relative to grading, curbing and paving alleys in said city of Lincoln; that said assessment of the property of these plaintiffs for cost of paving said alley in said block 40, in said city as aforesaid, is made upon property not abutting on said alley and the property aforesaid, is made upon property not abutting on said alley; and the property aforesaid of these plaintiffs, to-wit: said lots £ A,’ £ B,’

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hanscom v. City of Omaha
11 Neb. 37 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 N.W. 650, 32 Neb. 457, 1891 Neb. LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lansing-v-city-of-lincoln-neb-1891.