# Transcript of Record — DIST. OF COL. v. Lynchburg Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386002_0493%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Transcript of Record - **Published:** January 1, 1915 - **Citation:** 236 U.S. 692 ## Text I (23,668) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OCTOBER 1914. No. 163. CUNO H. RUDOLPH, Jo! IN A. JOUNSTON, AND CHESTER HARDING, COMMISSIONERS OF CHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PETITIONERS, v8. LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND HOLMES CENTRAL REALTY CORPORATION. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ALS OF THE Original. Print INDEX MS ARS NN sos od Sew SNG Rsv ees hindus ehasieswx bes voccoics Transcript from the supreme court of the District of Columbia. SEO Sih slab ea nadavbers raha dwihswek sbaWcscaclls ss oi. NE SANA AN OS eAS SRC OAS En’ b0incew¥ioolcce, Cereevceece Stitt pl Iain Re eS ee ee ee Pee PPOREPAFR COTES SOO Re ed On tb eee ee 2 ee toe www wae hee ee ee Ye eae ey Memoranda : Order directing marshal to summon jury ; order accepting and directing jury : cuse submitted to jury Verdict of jury Motion of Lynchburg Investinent Corporation to vacate ver- dict ; Exceptions of Holmes Central Realty Corporation to verdict Motion to ratify and confirm TUG 8 NF. Oe esc... Order overruling exceptions and objections and confirming EES MME Sirsa x ccnvarertidons ioc eee ee renee ORY RRP RAT TREE RS UES CORY OSSD bad Jupp & DerweiLer (INnc.), Painters, WasHINGTON, D. C., JuLy 8, 1914, INDEX. O°. AEE bo Be OE Pie Original. Print Time to file and settle bills of exceptions and transcript of record extended; bill of exceptions submitted........... 33 32 Order making bill of exceptions part of record........... 33 32 NL cus cb esac s tops crnned dnbo ous skews oven we 34 33 oo nek bdo e eed asoeecs eee oo ba ae be me 42 41 Memorandum: Time to file transcript of record entinied. 42 4? Assignment of errors on behalf of Lynchburg iaventenent Corporation and the Holmes Central Realty Investment COMPOTION on nce cvccesarctcernvenaevesscenvesencesacne 42 2 Directions to clerk for preparation of transcript of record. . 44 4 Memorandum : Time to file transcript further extended... . 45 rr ee i ncdbreoera rh tes thnedors aden e ve bis 45 H Minute entry of argument and submission............-..--.+-- 47 45 Stipulation of facts...............-. MACE RESEEE Dau e se bk nk avinw 48 46 RE Sous crermcrocobesscbdcbacrestistesdvper>sbbeservesses 49 46 RE cL ipiea bs chpsewrtacdbesoerccervseens 54 52 EEE OE COPOIONEEE oi ccc crcecscdconerrsessve Chpbetnoprinaaeae 55 52 Stipulation as to return to writ of certiorari............... ove 58 53 Clerk's certificate and return to writ of certiorari.............. 59 53 C. H. RUDOLPH ET AL. VS. LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORP. ET AL. 1 1 In the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. No. 2468. LyNcusBurG INvesTMENT CoRPORATION et al., Appellants, Cuno H. Seacawi et al. Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. District Court, No. 990. In re THe ExTENsION AND WIDENING OF COLORADO AVENUE AND OF KENNEDY Street NortHwesv. UNITED States or AMERICA, District of Columbia, ss: Be it remembered, That in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, at the city of Washington, in said District, at the times hereinafter mentioned, the following papers were filed, and proceed- ings had, in the above-entitled cause, to wit: Petition. Filed November 28, 1911. In the Supreme Court of the ~— of Columbia, Holding a District urt. District Court, No. 990. In re THE ExreNsion AND WIDENING oF CoLoRApo AVENUE AND oF KENNEDY Street Norruwesr. The petition of Cuno H. Rudolph, John A. Johnston and William V. Judson, respectfully represents: 1. That they are the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and as such Commissioners file this petition under the authority of an Act of Congress approved June 30, 1911, entitled “An Act to au- thorize the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, Northwest from Longfellow Street to Sixteenth Street, and of Kennedy Street, Northwest through lot numbered eight hundred, square numbered twenty-seven hundred and eighteen,” wherein and whereby 2 your petitioners are authorized and directed within six months after the passage of said Act under and in accordance with the provisions of Sections 491a to 491n; both inclusive. of sub- chapter 1 of Chapter XV of the Code of Law for the District of Co- 1—163 ae IC SIO OR es pe ape Ty 2 CUNO H. RUDOLPH ET AL. vs. lumbia, to institute proceedings in rem in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, to condemn the land that may be neces- sary for the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, Northwest. from Longfellow Street to Sixteenth Street with a width of one hun- dred and twenty feet, according to the plan for the permanent sys tem of highways for the District of Columbia, and of Kennedy Street, Northwest, through lot numbered eight hundred, square twenty-seven hundred and eighteen, with a width of ninety feet; that your petitioners under the authority of said Act and according to the provisions thereof and of said sub-chapter 1 of chapter XV of the Code, file this petition for the purpose of acquiring by condemna- tion the hereinafter described land for the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, and of Kennedy Street, as aforesaid, and for the assessments of the benefits resulting from the said extension and widening of Colorado Avenue and Kennedy Street. 2. That a map or plat showing the land to be taken for the said extension and widening of Colorado Avenue and Kennedy Street is hereto annexed as part of this petition, marked “Exhibit D. C., No. 1.” 3. That the land necessary for the said extension and widening of Colorado Avenue and Kennedy Street (together with the names and residences of the owners of the fee thereof, as far as the same -ean be ascertained) ix particularly described as follows: Descriptions of Land to Be Condemned for the Extension and Widening of Colorado Avenue Northwest from Longfellow Street to 16th Street, and of Kennedy Street Northwest Through Lot No, 800, Square 2718. Part of a tract of land taxed as Parcel 86/6: Beginning for the same at the intersection of the east line of 16th street with the easterly line of Blagden Mill Road, and running P thence with the east line of 16th street, south 0 05’ west 74.74 feet; thence with proposed easterly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide, north 33° 22’ 40” east 316.83 feet to the easterly line of the Blagden Mill Road; thence with said easterly line, south 42° 34’ west 257.68 feet to the point of beginning, containing 6502.94 square feet. Assessed in the name of Harriet 8S. Mathewson. Part of a tract of land taxed as lot 808, square 2715: Beginning for the same at the intersection of the east line of 16th street with the westerly line of Blagden Mill Road, and running thence with the east line of 16th street, north 0 05’ east 94.87 feet to the proposed wevterly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide: thence with said proposed line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 282.46 3 feet to the northerly line of said lot; thence with said north- erly line, south 56° 27’ 20” east 110.51 feet to the westerly line of Blagden Mill Road; thence with said westerly line south 42° 34’ west 366.40 feet to the point of beginning, containing 27340.16 square feet. Assessed in the name of Henry W. Houston. ed LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION EY AL. 3 Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 809, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the ~outherly line of said lot. north 56° 37° 20” west 110.51 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide: thence with said westerly line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 100 feet to the northerly line of said lot: thence with said northerly line, south 56° 37’ 207 east 52.97 feet to the westerly line of Piney Branch Road; thence with said westerly line, south 1° 26° 30” west 38.27 feet to an angle in said line; thence still with said line, south 17° 01’ east 20.94 feet to the westerly line of the Blagden Mill Road; thence with said westerly line, south 42° 34’ west 54.90 feet to the point of beginning, containing 10738.66 square feet. Assessed in the name of John H. Holt 903 G St. N. W. Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 815, Square 2718: sevinning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the southerly line of said lot, north 56° 37° 20” west 82.97 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said westerly line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 15 feet to the northerly line of said lot: thence with said northerly line, south 56° 37’ 20” east 73.6] feet to the westerly line of Piney Branch Road; thence with said westerly line south 1° 26’ 30” feet west 17.68 feet to the point of beginning containing 1174.35 square feet. Assessed in the names of Chas. C. Bryan and Walter A. Brown, Trustees, 1307 Fairmont N. W., 624 14th St. N. W. Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 810, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the southerly line of said lot, north 56° 37’ 20” west 73.61 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide: thence with said westerly line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 150 feet to the northerly line of said lot: thence with said northerly line, south 56° 37’ 20” east 30.01 feet to the present westerly line of Colorado Avenue; thence with said westerly line the following courses and distances: South 32° 44’ 30” west 10.78 feet; south 22° 37’ 30” west 101.87 feet; south 1° 26’ 30” west 46.15 feet to the point of begin- ning, containing 6696.22 square feet. Assessed in the name of Alonzo O. Bliss, Hotel Driscoll, 4 Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 818, Square 2718. Beginning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the southerly line of said lot, north 56° 37’ 20” west 30.01 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide: thence with said westerly line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 50 feet to the northerly line of said lot: thence with said northerly line, south 56° 37’ 20” east 29.44 feet to the present west- erly line of Colorado Avenue; thence with said westerly line, south = aoe POP APS ET SON SE Ea MMe Z 188 4 CUNO H. RUDOLPH ET AL. Vs. 32° 44’ 30” west 50 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1486.25 square feet. Assessed in the name of Ellis Spear, 1851 Lamont, N. W. Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 819, Square 2715: Beginning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the southerly line of said lot, north 56° 37’ 20” west 29.44 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said westerly line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 100 feet to the northerly line of said lot; thence with said northerly line, south 56° 37’ 20” east 28.29 feet to the present west- erly line of Colorado Avenue; thence with said westerly line, south 32° 44’ 30” west 100.01 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2886.50 square feet. pews in the name of Thomas G. Stewart. Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 812, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the southerly line of said lot, north 56° 37’ 20” west 28.29 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said westerly line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 100 feet to the northerly line of said lot; thence with said northerly line, south 56° 37’ 20” east 27.15 feet to the present west- erly line of Colorado Avenue; thence with said westerly line, south 32° 44’ 30” west 100.01 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2772 square feet. Assessed in the name of Fred M. Tryon, 1225 Mass. Ave. 8. E. Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 813, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the southerly line of said lot, north 56° 37’ 20” west 27.15 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said westerly line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 100 feet to the northerly line of said lot; thence with said northerly line, south 56° 37’ 20” east 26 feet to the present west- erly line of Colorado Avenue; thence with said westerly line, south 32° 44’ 30” west 100.01 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2657.50 square feet. - ~ in the name of Marie May Fisher, 1548 Wyoming Ave. 5 Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 814, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the southerly line of said lot, north 56° 37’ 20” west 26 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said westerly line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 112.22 feet to the northerly line of said lot; thence with said northerly line, south 62° 22’ east 24.79 feet to the present west- erly line of Colorado Avenue; thence with said westerly line, south LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. 5 32° 44’ 30” west 114.44 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2872.94 square feet. Assessed in the name of Ernest Wilkinson, Ouray Bldg. Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 800, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the most northerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the east line of 16th street, south 0 05’ west 59.01 feet to the proposed south line of Kennedy Street, 90 feet wide; thence with said south line, east 112.80 feet to the northerly line of said lot; thence with said northerly line, north 62° 22’ west 125.91 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3328 square feet. Assessed in the name of John P. Perry, Ezra R. Frost and Helen M. Bostwick, 606 9th St. N. W., 142 RN. E. Part of a tract of land taxed as Parcel 8613: Beginning for the same at the northwest corner of said parcel, and running thence with the south line of Longfellow Street, east 77.14 feet to the proposed easterly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said easterly line, south 33° 22’ 30” west 169.17 feet to the southerly line of said parcel; thence with said southerly line, north 79° 51’ west 66.18 feet to the present easterly line of Colorado Avenue: thence with said easterly line, north 32° 01’ 30” east 152.88 feet to the point of beginning, containing 10143.50 square feet. a Assessed in the name of Carrie Madison, 13th & Longfellow St. % s 4. That the aforesaid Act of Congress provides that the total amount to be found due and awarded as damages plus the cost and expenses of the proceedings, shall be assessed by the jury as benefits, and that said assessments shall he made by the said jury as benefits as contemplated in Section 491g of sub-chapter 1 of Chapter XV of the Code hereinbefore referred to, which said Section 491g provides : “That such amount shall be assessed by the jury as benefits, and to the extent of such benefits against the lots, pieces or parcels of land on each side of the street. avenue or highway to be opened, extended, widened or straightened, and against any and all other lots, pieces or parcels of land which the jury may find will be bene- fited by the opening, extension, widening or straightening; and in determining the amount to be assessed against said lots, pieces or parcels of land the jury shall take into consideration the respective parcels of land the jury shall take into consideration the respective situations, and topographical condition of said lots, pieces or parcels of land, and the benefits and advan- tages they may severally receive from the opening, extension, widen- ing or straightening of said street, avenue. road or highway.” Wherefore, the premises considered, and in accordance with the further provisions of sub-chapter 1 of Chapter XV of the Code of Law for the District of Columbia, your petitioners ray as follows: First. That this Honorable Court may cause publie notice of not 6 CUNO H. RUDOLPH ET AL. Vs. less than twenty days to be given of the institution of these pro- ceedings by advertisement in three daily newspapers published in the District of Columbia, which notice shall warn and require all persons having any interest in the proceedings to appear in this Court at a day to be named in said notice, and to continue in at- tendance until the Court shall have made its final order ratifying and confirming the award of damages and the assessments of bene- fits by the jury; and shall cause a copy of said notice to be served by the United States Marshall for the District of Columbia, or his deputies, upon such owners of the land to be condemned as can be found by the said Marshal or his deputies, within the District of Columbia, and upon the tenants and occupants of the same. Second. That the said Marshal may be directed to summon a jury of five experienced, judicious, disinterested men, who shall be free- holders in the District of Columbia, not related to any person inter- ested in these proceedings and not in the service or employment of the District of Columbia, or of the United States, to ascertain the damages each owner of the land to be taken may sustain by reason of the said extension and widening of Colorado Avenue and Ken- nedy Street, and the condemnation of the land nece-sary for the same. and to assess the benefits resulting therefrom in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act of Congress and of the aforesaid sub-chapter 1 of chapter XV of the Code. Third. That such other and further orders may be passed and proceedings had herein as are contemplated by the aforesaid Act of Congress. to the end that the aforesaid land may be condemned and secured for the said extension and widening of Colorado Avenue and of Kennedy Street, as aforesaid. CUNO H. RUDOLPH. JOHN A. JOHNSTON, WM. V. JUDSON, Commissioners of the District of Columbia. District or Co_umpBta, 88: Cuno H. Rudolph, being first duly sworn says: That he ix the President of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, that he has read the foregoing petition sub- scribed by the said Commissioners and knows the contents thereof; that the facts therein stated are true to the best of his official knowl- edge and belief. CUNO H. RUDOLPIL Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23d day of Novem- ber, A. D. 1911. WILLIAM TINDALL, Notary Public, D. C. E. H. THOMAS, J. F. SMITH, Attys. (Here follows drawing marked page 742.) FILMING Aria abe eS ix SP GS cla a ama acc ate Me Se Rant Sed PERDANA az LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. 7 Notice and Order of Publication. Filed November 28, 1911. * * * * * * * Notice is hereby given that the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress approved June 30th, 1911, entitled, “An Act to authorize the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, Northwest, from Longfellow Street to Sixteenth Street, and of Kennedy Street, Northwest, through lot numbered eight hundred, square numbered twenty-seven hundred and eighteen”, have filed a petition in this Court praying the con- demnation of the land necessary for the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, Northwest, with a width of one hundred and twenty feet, and of Kennedy Street, Northwest, with a width of ninety feet, in the District of Columbia, as shown on a map or plat filed with the said petition, as part thereof, and praying also that a jury of five experienced, judicious, disinterested men, who shall be freeholders within the District of Columbia, not related to any person interested in these proceedings and not in the service or employment of the District of Columbia, or of the United States, be summoned by the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia, to assess the damages each owner of the land to be taken may sustain by reason of the extension and widening of the aforesaid street and avenue and the condemnation of the land necessary for the purposes thereof, and to assess as benefits resulting therefrom the entire amount of said damages plus the costs of this proceeding upon the land abut- ting upon the said avenue and street to be extended and widened, and also upon all other pieces and parcels of land which the jury may find will be benefited by the said extension and widening of said Avenue and Street, as provided for by the aforesaid Act of Congress. It is, by the Court, this 28th day of November, A. D. 1911, Ordered: That all persons having any interest in these pro- ceedings be, and they are hereby, warned and commanded to appear in this Court on or before the 9th day of January A. D., 1912, at ten O'clock, A. M., and continue in attendance until the Court shall have made its final order ratifying and confirming the award 8 of damages and the assessment of benefits of the jury to be empaneled and sworn herein, and it is further Ordered, that acopy of this notice and order be published once in the Washing- ton Law Reporter and on six secular days in the Washington Even- ing Star, the Washington Herald, and the Washington Post, news- papers published in the said District, commencing at least twenty davs before the said 9th day of January A. D. 1912. It is further Ordered. that a copy of this notice and order be served by the United Stetes Marshal or his deputies, upon such owners of the land to be condemned herein as may be found by the said Marshal or his deputies within the District of Columbia, and upon the tenants and — of the same before the said 9th day of January A. D. 2. By the Court: JOB BARNARD, Justice. > PERSE ORR PR I Ot eR sip eee ae Pee mn gaa peer, —_— tara erg: ee Domne eeenyegy: ten mangers on i eae 8 CUNO H. RUDOLPH ET AL. Vs. Proof of Publication. Filed January 9, 1912. * . * * . * ” Affidavit. Disrricr or CoLtumsBtA, To wit: Personally appeared before me, a Notary Public in and for the said District, Arthur D. Marks well known to me to be one of the publishers of The Washington Post, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Washington and the District aforesaid, and made oath in due form of law that the annexed notice was published in said daily newspaper at the times mentioned in the Certificate opposite hereto. Witness my hand and official seal this § day of Nov. 1911. [ SEAL. | WILLIAM K. NOTTINGHAM, Notary Public, D.C. Cost of Proof of Publication not paid unless annexed receipt is signed and stamped by cashier of The Washington Post Company. WasuineaTon, D. C., Nov. 6, 1911. M— Dist. Com’rs to The Washington Post Company, Dr. For publishing the annexed Legal Notice in The Washing- NE SER Ne ye ne OO Pa a aa ae a ee $62.10 Received payment for the Company —— —, 19—. 9 E. H. Thomas and Jas. Francis Smith, Attorneys. In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, Holding a District Court. District Court, No. 990. In re ExteENSION AND WIDENING oF CoLoRADO AVENUE AND KeEv- NEDY STREET NORTHWEST. Notice is hereby given that the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress ap- proved June 30, 1911, entitled “An Act to authorize the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, Northwest, from Longfellow Street to Sixteenth Street, and of Kennedy Street, Northwest, through lot numbered eight hundred, square numbered twenty-seven hundred and eighteen,” have filed a petition in this Court praying the condemnation of the land necessary for the extension and widen- > LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. 9 ing of Colorado Avenue, Northwest, with a width of one hundred and twenty feet, and of Kennedy Street, Northwest, with a width of ninety feet, in the District of Columbia, as shown on a map or plat filed with the said petition, as part thereof, and praying also that a jury of five experienced, judicious, disinterested men, who shall be freeholders within the District of Columbia, not related to any per- son interested in these proceedings and not in the service or employ- ment of the District of Columbia, or of the United States, be sum- moned by the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia, to assess the damages each owner of the land to be taken may sustain by reason of the extension and widening of the aforesaid street and avenue and the condemnation of the land necessary for the purposes thereof, and to assess as benefits resulting therefrom the entire amount of said damages plus the costs of this proceeding upon the land abutting upon the said avenue and street to be extended and widened, pm also upon all other pieces and parcels of land which the jury may find will be benefited by the said extension and widen- ing of said Avenue and Street, as provided for by the aforesaid Act of Congress, It is, by the Court, this 28th day of November, A. D. 1911, Ordered: That all persons having any interest in these pro- ceedings be, and they are hereby, warned and commanded to appear in this Court on or before the 9th day of January, A. D. 1912, at Ten O'clock, A. M., and continue in attendance until the Court shall have made its final order ratifying and confirming the award of damages and the assessment of benefits of the jury to be empaneled and sworn here, and it is further Ordered, that a copy of this notice and order be published once in the Washington Law Reporter and on six secular days in the Washington Evening Star, the Washing- ton Herald, and The Washington Post, newspapers published in the said District, commencing at least twenty days before the said 9th day of January A. D. 1912. It is further Ordered, that a copy of this notice and order be served by the United States Marshal or his deputies, upon such owners of the land to be condemned 10 herein as may be found by the said Marshal or his deputies within the District of Columbia, and upon the tenants and occupants of the same before the said 9th day of January A. D. 1912. By the Court: JOB BARNARD, Justice. A true Copy. Test: [ SEAL. | J. R. YOUNG, Clerk, By F. E. CUNNINGHAM, Ass't Clerk. I hereby certify that the foregoing Legal Notice was printed and published in the Washington Post, a daily newspaper upon the fol- lowing dates: Nov. 29, Dee. 1-2-4-5-6, 1911. ARTHUR D. MARKS, Business Manager. * * * * + * * 10 CUNO H. RUDOLPH ET AL. VS. Affidavit. District or Cotumsia, To wit: Personally appeared before me, a Notary Public in and for the said District, M. W. Moore, who being duly sworn according to law, on oath says he is the Manager of The Law Reporter Printing Com- pany, publisher of “The Washington Law Reporter” a weekly news- paper printed and published in the District aforesaid, and that the advertisement of which the annexed is a true copy was published in the regular editions of said weekly newspaper 1 times, on the fol- lowing dates Dec. 1, 1911. M. W. MOORE. Sworn to and subscribed before ine Dec. 8th, 1911. [ SEAL. ] WM. J. NEALE, Notary Public, District of Columbia, Office of Publication, 518 Fifth Street N. W. No. 990, Doe. —, 777. In re THE WipENING AND Extension or CoLorapo AVE. AND OF KENNEDY STREET. Wasninoton, D. C., Dec. 8, 1911. M— District of Coul-bia to The Law Reporter Printing Company, Dr., Publisher of “The Washington Law Reporter.” For Publishing the attached Legal Notice................ $7.68 Received payment for the company —, 191-. ? General Manager. Per 11 E. H. Thomas and Jas. Francis Smith, Attorneys. In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, Holding a District Court. District —, No. 990. In re ExtexsioN AND WIDENING oF CoLoRADO AVENUE AND OF KENNEDY STREET NORTHWEST. Notice is hereby given that the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, pursuant to the provisions of an act of Congress approved June 30th, 1911, entitled, “An Act to authorize the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, Northwest, from Longfellow Street to Sixteenth Street, and of Kennedy Street, Northwest, through lot numbered eight hundred, square numbered twenty-seven hundred PRI ROLLED AE AOR MRR LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. 11 and eighteen,” have filed a petition in this Court praying the con- demnation of the land necessary for the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, Northwest, with a width of one hundred and twenty feet, and of Kennedy Street, Northwest, with a width of ninety feet, in the District of Columbia, as shown on a map or plat filed with the said petition, ax part thereof, and praying also that a jury of five experienced, judicious, disinterested men, who shall be freeholders within the District of Columbia, not related to any per- son interested in these proceedings and not in the service or em- ployment of the District of Columbia, or of the United States. he summoned by the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia to assess the damages each owner of the land to be taken may sustain by reason of the extension and widening of the aforesaid «nd street and avenue and the condemnation of the land necessary for the pur- poses thereof, and to assess as benefits resulting therefrom the entire amount of said damages plus the costs of this proceeding upon the land abutting upon the said Avenue and Street to be extended and widened, and also upon all other pieces and parcels of land which the jury may find will be benefited by the said extension and widen- ing of said Avenue and Street, as provided for by the aforesaid Act of Congress. It is, by the Court, this 28th day of November, A. D. 1911, Ordered: That all persons having any interest in these pro- ceedings be, and they are habe. warned and comnranded to appear in this Court on or before the 9th day of January A. D. 1912, at ten o'clock, A. M., and continue in attendance unt] the Court shall have made its final order ratifying and confirming the award of damages and the assessment of benefits of the jury to be empaneled and sworn herein, and it is further Ordered, that a copy of this notice and order be published once in the Washington Law Reporter and on six secular days in the Washington Evening Star, the Wash- ington Herald, and the Washington Post, news apers published in the said District, commencing at least twenty days before the said %h day of January A. D. 1912. It is further Ordered, that a copy of this notice and order be served by the United States Marshal or his deputies upon such owners of the land to be condemned 12 herein as may be found by the said Marshal or his deputies within the District of Columbia. and upon the tenants and — of the same before the said 9th day of January A. D. By the Court: JOB BARNARD, Justice. A true Copy. Test: [sEAL. ] J. R. YOUNG, Clerk. By F. E. CUNNINGHAM. Asst Clerk. PREY EPA IR PA LORE TICLE LI ELE 6 ACO INANE GOI 12 CUNO H. RUDOLPH ET AL. VS. Proof of Publication. District or CoL. MBIA, 38: Personally appeared before me Jay B. Smith, a Notary Public in and for the District aforesaid, Fleming Newbold, who being duly sworn according to law, on oath says that he is the Agent and Busi- * ness Manager of The Evening Star, a daily newspaper Published in this City of Washington, District of Columbia, and that the adver- tisement, of which the annexed is a true copy, was published in said newspaper six times on the following dates: Nov’r 29, Dee. 1-2-4-5 & 6 1911, at a cost of Sixty four and 80/100 ($64.80) Dollars. FLEMING NEWBOLD. Sworn to and subscribed before me Dec’r Sth, 1911. [sEAL. ] JAY B. SMITH, Notary Public. E. H. Thomas and Jas. Francis Smith, Attorneys. In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, Holding a District Court. District Court, No. 990. In re Extension AND WIDENING OF CoLorApo AVENUE AND OF KENNEDY STREET NORTHWEST. Notice is hereby given that the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress approved June 30th, 1911, entitled “An Act to authorize the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, Northwest, from Longfellow Street to Sixteenth Street, and of Kennedy Street, Northwest, through lot numbered eight hundred, square numbered twenty-seven hundred and eighteen,” have filed a petition in this Court praying the con- demnation of the land necessary for the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, Northwest, with a width of one hundred and twenty feet, and of Kennedy Street, Northwest, with a width 13 of ninety feet. in the District of Columbia, as shown on a map or plat filed with the said petition, ax part thereof, and praying also that a jury of five experienced, judicious, disinterested men. who shall be freeholders within the District of Columbia, not related to any person interested in these proceedings and not in the service or employment of the District of Columbia, or of the United States. be summoned by the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia, to assess the damages each owner of the land to be taken may sustain by reason of the extension and widening of the aforesaid street and avenue and the condemnation of the land neces sary for the purposes thereof, and to assess as benefits resulting there from the entire amount of said damages plus the costs of this pro LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. 13 ceeding upon the land abutting upon the said avenue and street to be extended and widened, and also upon all other pieces and parcels of land which the jury may find will be benefited by the said exten- sion and widening of said Avenue and Street, as provided for by the aforesaid Act of Congress. It is, by the Court, this 28th day of November, A. D. 1911, Ordered: That all persons having any in- terest in these proceedings be, and they are hereby, warned and commanded to appear in this Court on or before the 9th day of January, A. D. 1912, at ten O'clock, A. M., and continue in at- tendance until the Court shall have made its final order ratifying and confirming the award of damages and the assessment of benefits of the jury to be empaneled and sworn herein, and it is further Ordered, that a copy of this notice and order be published once in the Washington Law Reporter and on six secular days in the Wash- ington Evening Star, the Washington Herald, and the Washington Post, newspapers published in the said District, commencing at least twenty days before the said 9th day of January A. D. 1912. It is further Ordered, that a copy of this notice and order by the United States Marshal or his deputies, — upon such owners of the land to be condemned herein as may be found by the said Marshal or his deputies within the District of Columbia, and upon the tenants and occupants of the same before the said 9th day of January A. D. 1912. By the Court: JOB BARNARD, Justice. A true copy. Test: [sEax. | J. R. YOUNG, Clerk, By F. E. CUNNINGHAM, Ass’t Clerk. Certificate of Publication. Ciry axp County or WASHINGTON, District of Columbia, ss: On this 9th day of January, A. D. one thousand nine hundred and twelve personally appeared before me Paul F. Cain, a 14 Notary Public in and for the City and County aforesaid J. W. Hunter who being duly sworn according to law, declares that he is the business Manager of The Washington Herald, a daily newspaper Published in this City and County of Washington, Dis- trict of Columbia, and that the advertisement, of which the annexed is a true copy, was published on the following dates: Dec. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1911, at a cost of Forty-eight & 60/100 Dollars. J. W. HUNTER, Business Manager The Washington Herald Co. Sworn and subscribed to before me this 9th day of January, A. D. one thousand nine hundred and Twelve. [SEAL. ] PAUL F. CAIN, Notary Public. EPH EMEESEIO NI Sas 2 nny iP Ty PPP ILE LIE OE AE i 14 CUNO H. RUDOLPH ET AL. VS. E. H. Thomas and Jas. Francis Smith, Attorneys. In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, Holding a District Court. District Court, No. 990. In re Extension AND Wipextnc or CoLorapo AVENUE AND OF KENNEDY StrReET NORTHWEST. Notice is hereby given that the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress approved June 30th, 1911, entitled “An Act to authorize the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, Northwest, from Longfellow Street to Sixteenth Street. and of Kennedy Street, Northwest, through lot numbered eight hundred, square numbered twenty-seven hundred and eighteen,” have filed a petition in this Court praying the con- demnation of the land necessary for the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, Northwest, with a width of one hundred and twenty feet, and of Kennedy Street, Northwest, with a width of ninety feet, in the District of Columbia, as shown on a map or plat filed with the said petition, as part thereof, and praying also that a jury of five experienced, judicious, disinterested men, who shall be freeholders within the District of Columbia, not related to any per- son interested in these proceedings and not in the service or employ- ment of the District of Columbia. or of the United States, be sum- moned by the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia, to assese the damages each owner of the land to be taken may sustain by reason of the extension and widening of the aforesaid street and avenue and the condemnation of the land necessary for the pur- poses thereof, and to assess as benefits resulting therefrom the entire amount of said damages plus the costs of this proceeding upon the land abutting upon the said avenue and street to be exten ed and widened, and also upon all other pieces and parcels of land which the jury may find will be benefited by the said extension and widen- ing of said Avenue and Street, as provided for by the afore- 15 aid Act of Congress. It is, by the Court, this 28th day of November, A. D. 1911, Ordered: That all persons having any interest in these proceedings be, and they are hereby. warned and commanded to appear in this Court on or before the 9th day of January A. D., 1912, at ten O’elock, A. M.. and continue in at- tendance until the Court shall have made its final order ratifying and confirming the award of damages and the assessment of benefits of the jury to be empaneled and sworn herein, and it is further Ordered, that a copy of this notice and order be published once in the Washington Law Reporter and on six secular days in the Wash- ington Evening Star, the Washington Herald, and the Washington Post, newspapers published in the said District. commencing at least twenty days before the said 9th day of January A. D. 1912. It is further Ordered, that a copy of this notice and order be served by the United States Marshal or his deputies, upon such owners of the LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. 15 land to be condemned herein as may be found by the said Marshal or his deputies within the District of Columbia, and upon the ten- ants and occupants of the same before the said 9th day of January A. D. 1912. By the Court: JOB BARNARD, Justice. A true copy. Test: [sean] J. R. YOUNG, Clerk, By F. E. CUNNINGHAM, Asst Clerk. Appearances. December 20, 1911.—Appearance of A. Leftwich Sinclair for John H. Holt, filed. January 8, 1912.,—Appearance of Eugene A. Jones for Alonzo O. Bliss, filed. January 9, 1912.—Appearance of S. Herbert Giesy for Ernest Wilkinson, filed. January 19, 1912.—Appearance of S. Herbert Giesy for Marie May Fisher, filed. February 23, 1912.—Appearance of William W. Mathewson for Harriet S. Mathewson, filed. April 11, 1912.—Appearance of James B. Green for John P. Perry, filed. Memoranda. January 9, 1912.—Order directing Marshal to summon Jury, filed, January 26, 1912.—Order accepting and directing Jury, filed. March 8, 1912.—Case submitted to Jury. 16 Verdict of Jury. Filed April 4, 1912. - * * * ” * - We, the jury in the above entitled cause, hereby find the follow- ing verdict and award of damages for and in respect of the land to be condemned and taken for the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, Northwest, from Longfellow Street to Sixteenth Street, and of Kennedy Street, Northwest, through lot numbered eight hundred. square nunibered twenty-seven hundred and eighteen, in the District of Columbia, as shown on the map or plat filed with the petition in this cause, amounting to the sum of thirty-four thousand, one hun- dred thirty-nine dollars and thirty-seven cents ($34,139.37), as set forth in Schedule No. 1 hereto annexed as part hereof. And we, the jury aforesaid, hereby find the expenses of these pro- ceedings to amount to the sum of five hundred, thirty-six dollars and eighteen cents, ($536.18). 16 CUNO H. RUDOLPH Ef AL, VS. And we, the jury aforesaid, hereby find the amount of benefits according by reason of the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, Northwest, from Longfellow Street to Sixteenth Street, and of Kennedy Street, Northwest, through lot numbered eight hundred, square numbered twenty-seven hundred and eighteen, in the District of Columbia, to be the sum of thirty-four thousand, six hundred seventy-five dollars and fifty-five cents ($34,675.55). And we, the jury aforesaid, find that the lots, pieces or parcels of land which will be benefited by the aforesaid extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, are the lots or parts of lots, pieces or parcels of land, mentioned and described in Schedule No. 2, hereto annexed as part hereof: and we hereby find that the several lots, pieces or parcels of land or parts of lots mentioned in Schedule No, 2, will be bene fited to the extent of the respective amounts mentioned and set forth in said Schedule No. 2, and we hereby assess against the said lots, or parts of lots, pieces or parcels of land, respectively, as and for bene fits, as aforesaid, the several amounts specified, and set forth in said Schedule No. 2. Witnes« our hands and seals this 4th day of April A. D. 1912. WILLIAM T. GALLEHER. [seat.| APPLETON P. CLARK. [ SEAL. | SAMUEL M. DARRAGH. [ SEAL, | JOHN MITCHELL. [ SEAL. | J. H. SMALL, Jr. [ SEAL. | ScnepuLe No. 1. Damages. Parcels: Part of a tract of land taxed as Parcel 86/6: Beginning for the same at the intersection of the east line of 16th street with the easterly line of Blagden Mill Road, and run- 17 ning thence with the east line of 16th Street, south 0° 05° west 74.74 feet: thence with proposed easterly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide, north 33° 22’ 40” east 316.55 feet to the easterly line of the Blagden Mill Road; thence with said easterly line, south 42° 34’ west 257.68 feet to the point of beginning, con- taining 6502.94 square feet. Assessed in the name of Harriet S. Mathewson. Amount awarded as damages.........---+++eee005 $4155.35 Square 2718: Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 808, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the intersection of the east line of 16th Street with the westerly line of Blagden Mill Road, and running thence with the east line of 16th Street, north 0° 05° east 94.87 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said proposed line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 282.46 fee LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. 17 to the northerly line of said lot; thence with said northerly line, south 56° 37’ 20” east 110.51 feet to the westerly line of Blagden Mill Road ; thence with said westerly line, south 42° 34’ west 366.40 feet to the point of beginning, containing 27340.16 square feet. Assessed in the name of Henry W. Houston. Amount awarded as damages..................... $12872.00 Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 809, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot and running thence with the southerly line of said lot, north 56° 37’ 20” west 110.51 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said wester y line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 100 feet to the northerly line of said lot; thence with said northerly line, south 56° 37’ 20” east 82.97 feet to the westerly line of Piney Branch Road; thence with said westerly line, south 1° 26’ 30” west 38.27 feet to an angle in said line; thence still with said line, south 17° 01’ east 20.94 feet to the westerly line of Blagden Mill Road; thence with said westerly line, south 42° 34’ west 54.90 feet to the point of beginning, containing 10738.66 square feet. in the name of John H. Holt. Amount awarded as damages..................... $4295 .54 Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 815, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the southerly line of said lot, north 56° 37’ 20” west 82.97 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said westerly line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 15 feet to the northerly line of said lot; thence with said northerly line south 56° 37’ 20” east 73.61 feet to the westerly line of Piney Branch Road; thence with said west- 18 — erly line, south 1° 26’ 30” west 17.68 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1174.35 square feet. pete. in the names of Chas, C. Bryan & Walter A. Brown, Trs. Amount awarded as damages....................... $469.60 Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 810, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the southerly line of said lot, north 56° 37’ 20” west 73.61 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said westerly line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 150 feet to the northerly line of said lot; thence with said northerly line, south 56° 37’ 20” east 30.01 feet to the present west- erly line of Colorado Avenue; thence with said westerly line the fol- lowing courses and distances: 3—163 18 CUNO Hi. RUDOLPH FT AL. Vs. South 32° 44’ 30” west 10.78 feet; South 22° 37’ 30” west 101.87 feet; South 1° 26’ 30” west 46.15 feet to the point of beginning, containing 6606.22 square feet. Assessed in the names of Arthur L. Bliss, Howard Van Law and E. A. Jones, Trustees. Amount awarded as damages.............0.000000- $2678 .49 Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 818, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the southerly line of said lot, north 56° 37’ 20” west 30.01 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said westerly line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 50 feet to the northerly line of said lot: thence with said northerly line, south 56° 37’ 20” east 29.44 feet to the present westerly line of Colorado Avenue; thence with said westerly line. south 32° 44’ 30” west 50 feet to the point of beginning, contain- ing 1486.25 square feet. Assessed in the name of Ellix Spear. Amount awarded as damages.....................-. $445 86 Part of a tract of land taxed asx Lot 819, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the southerly line of said lot, north 56° 37’ 20” west 29.44 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said westerly line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 100 feet to the northerly line of said lot; thence with said northerly line, south 56° 37’ 20” east 28.29 feet to the present westerly line of Colorado Avenue; thence with said westerly line, south 32° 44’ 30” west 100.01 feet to the point of beginning, con- taining 2586.50 square feet. Assessed in the name of Thomas G. Stewart. Amount awarded as damages..................0... $865 95 19 Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 812, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the southerly line of said lot, north 56° 37’ 20” west 28.29 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said westerly line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 100 feet to the northerly line of said lot; thence with said northerly line, south 56° 37’ 20” east 27.15 feet to the present westerly line of Colorado Avenue; thence with said westerly line, south 32° 44 30” west 100.01 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2772 square feet. Assessed in the name of Fred M. Tryon. Amount awarded as damages................cee000- $831.60 LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. 19 Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 813, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the southerly line of said lot, north 56° 37’ 20” west 27.15 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said westerly line, north 33° 22’ 40” east 100 feet to the northerly line of said lot; thence with said northerly line, south 56° 37’ 20” east 26 feet to the present westerly line of Colorado Avenue; thence with said westerly line, south 32° 44’ 30” west 100.01 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2657.50 square feet. Assessed in the name of Marie May Fisher. Amount awarded as damages........................ $791.25 Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 814, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the most southerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the southerly line of said lot, north 56° 37’ 20” west 26 feet to the proposed westerly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said westerly ise, north 33° 22’ 40” east 112.22 feet to the northerly line of said lot; thence with said north- erly line, south 62° 22’ east 24.79 feet to the present westerly line of Colorado Avenue; thence with said westerly line, south 32° 44’ 30” west 114.44 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2872.94 square feet. Assessed in the name of Ernest Wilkinson. Amount awarded as damages..................02.4.. $861.88 Part of a tract of land taxed as Lot 800, Square 2718: Beginning for the same at the most northerly corner of said lot, and running thence with the east line of 16th Street, south 0° 05’ west 59.01 feet to the proposed south line of Kennedy Street, 90 feet wide; thence with said south line, east 112.80 feet to the north- erly line of said lot; thence with said northerly line, north 20 62° 22’ west 125.91 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3328 square feet. Assessed in the name of John P. Perry. Amount awarded as damages....................... $2828.80 Parcels: Part of a tract of land taxed as Parcel 86/13: Beginning for the same at the northwest corner of said parcel, and running thence with the south line of Longfellow Street, east 77.14 feet to the proposed easterly line of Colorado Avenue, 120 feet wide; thence with said easterly line, south 33° 22’ 30” west 169.17 feet to the southerly line of said parcel; thence with said southerly line, north 79° 51’ west 66.18 feet to the present easterly line of Colorado Avenue; thence with said easterly line, north 32° 01’ 30” a CEES EL A ON OE OO AE Pa LB CLES IEEE Sk Ae em IR are | | 20 CUNO H: RUDOLPH ET AL. VS. east 152.88 feet to the point of beginning, containing 10143.50 square feet. Assessed in the name of Samuel W. Woodward. Amount awarded as damages.............-2seseeee: $3043.05 Costs: NE oo s.cinsa cle bccuvsansee sees susaaeeenabenn ens $311.18 } EET EOTEE REE TET OE TET Ter ee ee 225.00 Pree Terr rer ey pyre trey rrr $34675.55 i Sr re he eS Pee at assoc ¥. Synge nh oa, hess aise is. 5 tit £ LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. OL’ O08 : gi ae a ‘op ‘op ”» ” ” ” ” ‘6L ” ” ” OL “08 ; ced asl hi ‘op ‘op ” ” ” ” ” ‘ST ” » ” OL “08 ; nt vipecy sh ‘op ‘op ” ” ” ” ”» ‘LI ”» ” ” OL “08 ; haat ; *uoRRr0d10( JU9UT}SOAUT Sinqyousy ” ” ” ” ” ‘9T »” ”» ” 09° LPI . serene COteercesecceseser * lauueg ‘Vv AGAIBv Ma * ve ‘s ‘i ‘GI ee i a 09° Itl ; Sema eo ‘op ‘op ” ” ” ” ” nal ” ” ” 09° ltl ; phen ‘op ‘op ” ”» ”» ” ” ‘ST ” ” ” 09° Itt : aout oe ‘op ‘op ” ” ” ” ” rai ” ” ” 09 : Itl ’ ae : “Worer0d0p JUOUTSOAUT SanqyousT ” ”» ” ” ” ‘Tr ” ” ” an a AAASRN CORRODE SH ean ae nom me ce AEs = ea evetar OO'ELZ occtttttee WSORMNAN SYS n5 59 05> «sla oe elias 6 nia OL'esh octtee . Ae Re bes ow Aen “**-oMey “Y pawapg Jo eureu ay Ul passesy “g yor] Jo Tht ‘GILZ exenbg OL “O08 : ' rae o ‘op ‘op ” ” ”» ” ” ‘TS ”» ” ” OL “08 ’ bones res ‘op ‘op ” ” ” ” ” GE ” ” ” OL “08 , INeKG es ‘op ‘op ” ” ” ” ” "SS »” ” ” 00° cs : she wpe a ‘op ‘op ” ” PE ” ” ” eee. fy te sess “‘uorBiodio) JUsUSeAUT SanqyoudT jo oureu au} Ul pessessy “Cg 407 Jo [IV “syyous : oe ‘¥08% ovenbs qunowy ‘eyyourg ‘Z ‘ON @ATAGHHOg 13 tele Ge 2 aes Ate & See RUDOLPH ET AL. V8. CUNO H. 00° L6ST es'nens Aaa RAN SS a0 OR Se ee Rae REA CE RE LeU ee re TRO he WOH _— uyor Jo OurvU oY) Ul pessessy “‘Burpesooud sty} Aq peuluepuods you GO8 10'T Pres Jo [Te Burg “GOR I'] JO Weg Oh See 508 Aes ees kash sees s SOLARA EROS CSRS EEE SS ReaD Oe we Bes oe 88 UOoWNOP “AA ALUo}] jo : OlUBU OY) UL pessassy ‘Surpoaoord sty) Aq pouUepUOD you QO IO] PTRS JO [[B Sulog “gOg OT JO Wg y 'QLLZ evubg 8% . pen nae! — % 000099 ee ee ia oie ara ere bag ol he iba eas a ds ee alec ay } +++ + uosmoyqEyy “g JouARET Jo ourwu : ayy Ul possess y “‘Burposoord suyy aq peUWapUOd JOU g/g JOB pres Jo [[w Buleg “g/gg “vq JO Weg t 0¢ . 6LES$ 66s 66 6.6 6S Oe. 89 2 0-6 6S 618 8.8 6 6. 6 6.66.8. 6 & s&s UOos|L A “Ul mi jo eweUu oq} ul Pessess V “PI/98 ‘Iv jo IV . :s]oouBg ; 09° #6 ett : ae sks ‘op ‘op ” ” ” ” ” 6 ” ” ” OL 7 16 ak : a oats ‘op ‘op ” ” » ” ” ‘Or ” ” » 06° FS eb peu ah Paitin eet ae eats Y uonywrodi0) JUBUTSoAUT Ssanqyousy ” ” ” ” ” "ket ” ” ” 06° FS “ee . * nes ‘hae eS 666 5 8 ysneg ‘g Sous f m : a * “SL = et as ob ot . vonG Padua ace ge ‘swayavg ‘O eon, sie = iO Esl ela : se “wonBIodio/) quoW seu, Sanqyoudy ,, —,, a - Ae eee OL i 16 y . sige ek dalek Aa ean ae 2 eunsueydjoH ‘d SITTON ” ” ”? ” ”? ‘GT ” ” ” OL LST id ‘ Sahat Me RAC tg eee , “Urey ‘a STTJPN ” ” »” ” ” ‘T ” ” ” cS . ZS 7 be sa uor}B10d109 }UBUT}S0. AUT BSinqyous'y ” ” »” ” ” % ” ” ” 00° FST sag Ft et a Be NC | ‘qd sluuBy ,, ” ” ” ”» g ” ” ” re GY ran ie re. “YU SOPBYO puvs “YY oduelIpy ,, ‘8 » 99 00° PLE IM tek Siar, ss abate Ss us, 4 "S SoprvyH pus *] us] jo sauvu ayy ut passass VL PIT JIV GZ 88s ; : : Seay Sek * ALOU] 1OLB]X qyeqezy ” ” ” ” »” ‘9 ” ” ” 00° LL1Z sg . sstssssssudjog ouvs ALU pue uyor ,, ,, ” ” g ” i a ssessssssudiog euvr AlepY pus UYOLr jo seureu ey) ut possessy ‘fF wT jo Iv 'QILZ erenbg ZZ . ESE Es) 23 LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. SOLUBU OY} UT possossy 06° OG ari «2 ee adie ar ‘op ‘op ” ” ” ” ” ‘eI ”» ”» »”» 09° 09 shia psy ating a ‘op ‘op ” ” ” ” ” OL ”» ”» ” 09°09 fyi nd tala y pie ahena ag. ‘op ‘op ” ” ” ” ” Tr ” ” ” 09°09 Terese sess" @[pousoy "] OuLoyjyey puB “A adioay) JO aUIVU OY} UL possessy “OT 30] JO [TV 09°09 Senta meg gt ls epee te het ade ie pus * 4 \ 05.1001) ” ”» ” ” ”» 6 ” » ” 09°09 errs ter er ms ‘op a LORS Aeuby » » ”» ” ra) ” » » » ” ” OT jo ”? »” » »” ” ” ” ” yor] Jo ” ” ”» ” ”» ” »” ” ” » » ”» » ”» ‘A SQELVYD PUB LOTULUNOAg, “GP sLAvory Jo sounvit ay} un passassy ‘Tl ” ” ” ” »” ” Ww] Jo [908% enbs UV Lx F ’ > & a * 27 LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. cg’ ge LOPES" C8 1Z CGS Ce Ss LE °Ss CESS OL bY CS" Gs SE°SE LE Ss Sess ESE SESE CE Ss SEZs CE °SE Ch OF ‘UOUIONL see ee eae . . . . eeee . ee ree eeeeeeeeenneners ‘@][ArIWIOg “y eruUBy ,, ‘op ‘op, “ss *s9109 “y wyooTUpy .,, reese op ‘op » "*****UOSIPUTY OLED ,, JoqeH puv sunjury “y eB104) ,, ee, ®e@eeeeeeaee ‘op ‘op » MV FOUNTLAL , ‘op » “*@YOOULOFT “g OD10eH ,, teeeeee | Sop ‘op, "CUM “WN BPI » Sie aha ‘op ‘op ” pas S[jouuoGg ‘"] o1peg ,, | SMG WN UPL» SA 2.494044 956 9 6 4% ‘y vuuy jo aureu ayy ut passoss\y ‘OL 861% arenbg “AV TROL ms." JOT jo “M Se lal ee ee “ITULM PIRGHoay JO oumeU oYy UT pessassy -9//7g “Teg JO ITV > s]eoreg ae be 28 CUNO H. RUDOLPH FT AL. VS. 29 Motion to Vacate Verdict. Filed April 24, 1912. . * * . * . * Now comes the Lynchburg Investment Corporation, a body cor- porate of the State of Virginia, appearing specially for the pur- pose of this motion and for none other, and, respectfully showing to the court that it was not made a party to the petition filed herein, that said petition contained no prayer for process against it, and that it had no notice of the pendency of this proceeding either actual or constructive, unless said notice is to be implied from the fact of pub- lication, moves the court to vacate the verdict of the jury filed herein in so far as it is concerned for the following reasons: 1. Notice of publication passed heretofore, to wit, the 28th day of November, A. D. 1911, was defective and insufficient to give the court any jurisdiction over the Lynchburg Investment Corporation or its real estate because it did not give notice that an assessment would be made of benefits which had actually been sustained, but only the benefits which “the jury might find will be” sustained “by the said extension and widening.” 2. Because the petition in this cause does not seek the assessment of benefits which are actually sustained by the property, but, instead, an assessment of the benefits resulting from the proposed extension and widening. 3. Because public notice of not less than twenty days was not given of the institution of this proceeding by advertisment in three daily newspapers published in the District of Columbia, as pro- vided hy Section 491-c of the Code and consequently the court never gequired jurisdiction to assess benefits against the said Lyneh- burg Secunia Corporation or any of the land owned by it. 4. Because the order of publication passed herein on the 28th day of November, A. D. 1911, did not conform to the requirements of the said Section 491-c, but, instead, warned and commanded the parties to appear on January 9th, 1912, and required that a copy of that order “be published once in the Washington Law Reporter and on six secular days in the Washington Evening Star, the Wash- ington Herald, and the Washington Post, commencing at least 20 days before the said 9th day of January, A. D. 1912”. and the said order was only published in each of the said papers six times, which was not “public notice of not less than twenty days.” 5. Because, though the order of publication passed on November 28th, A. D. 1911, required that it be published in the three news papers therein mentioned on six secular days, it was only published in the Evening Star on five secular days, one of the six publications being had on Saturday, December 2nd, in the afternoon of that day, which was a legal holiday and therefore not a secular day under the order. 30 6. Because the said Lynchburg Investment Corporation was nowhere named in the petition in this cause or in Saat aS AE LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. 29 prayers annexed thereto, was not served with process, and had no notice of the pendency of this proceeding until after the conclusion of the hearing. 7. Because notice by publication did not constitute due pro- cess of law against the Lynchburg Tuvestment Corporation, because of the insufficiency, in the several respects above noted, of the publication actually had, and also because of the unjust discrimi- nation made in the statute between proceedings against the owners of land to be condemned and the owners of land to be assessed for benefits, in that Section 491-c specifically requires that in addition to said public notice the court shall cause a copy of said notice to be served by United States Marshal for the District of Columbia, or his deputies, upon such owners of the land to be condemned as can be found by the Marshal, or his deputies, within the District of Co- lumbia, and upon the tenants and occupants of the same, but makes no provision for actual notice of any kind to owners of land to be as- sessed, and no attempt was made to give such notice to the Lynch- burg Investment Corporation, though the petitioners well knew its interests by virtue of the fact that it has for many years paid taxes on large parcels of land in the proximity of the land sought to be condemned in this proceeding, and has for a long time appeared upon the assessment books of the District of Columbia as such owner, and it is still the owner among other property in the District of Columbia, of lots numbered 31, 32, 33. 34, and 35. in Square No. 2804, Lots numbered 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17. 18, and 19. in Square No. 2715, Lots numbered 2, 9, 10, 11 and 14 in Square No. 2716 Lots numbered 31. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 in Square No, 2803, Lots numbered 29, 30, 31, 32. 33. 34, 35, and 36 in Square No. 2802 and Lots numbered 15, 17, 18 and 19, in Square No. 2801, against all of which assessment for benefits has been made by the verdict of the jury returned in this cause, 8. Because, though Section 491-g of the Code expressly provides that “where part of any lot, piece, parcel or tract of land has been dedicated for the opening, extension, widening or straightening of a street, avenue, road or highway, the jury, in determining whether the remainder of said lot, piece, parcel or tract is to be assessed for benefits and the amount of benefits, if any. to be assessed thereon, shall also take into consideration the fact of such dedication, and the value of the land so dedicated”. and though the said Lynchburg Investment Corporation, by sub-division plat duly recorded in Book 36, page 2, of the records of the office of the Survevor of the District of Columbia heretofore, to wit, the 10th day of September, 1909, dedicated for the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue. Northwest more than fifty thousand square feet of ground, as will more fully and in detail appear by reference to the said recorded sub- division, which it is hereby prayed may be taken and read as a part of this motion, with leave hereafter to file a certified copy thereof. The fact of this dedication was not brought to the attention 31 of the jury by the petitioners. who well knew the facts and the Lynchburg Investment Corporation by reason of its lack PLL Spe Fe ee A OOD L te ORE RARER NOT OP QE: TAS: 30 CUNO H. RUDOLPH ET AL. Vs. of notice of these proceedings had no opportunity to do so, and in consequence the jury in this case did not take into consideration the fact of such dedication or the value of the land so dedicated, and were not instructed by the court so to do. 9, Because the court instructed the jury that they should assess benefits upon all lots, pieces, or parcels of land “which the jury might find will be benefited by the said extension of Colorado Avenue and Kennedy Street,” and, in the same connection, further in- structed the jury that “by the extension of the avenue and street the jury are to understand its establishment, laying out and completion for all the ordinary uses of a public thoroughfare” instead of in- structing the jury, as should have been done, that they could assess such benefits as they should find had actually accrued from the pro- posal of the contemplated extension and widening; and that they should not consider the proposed extension and widening as laid out and completed for the ordinary uses of a public thoroughfare, but should only consider whatever actual enhancement of the market value of the land had accrued from the said widening and extension or either of them. 10, Because the court instructed the jury that they might find and assess benefits if it should find “either that the fair market value of such parcel of land will be increased or that such parcel will be made available for some use for which it is not now available by reason of the withdrawal from private ownership of the land to be condemned and its appropriation for public use as a street.” 11. Because the petition in this cause filed nowhere alleges that the land sought to be condemned is necessary for the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, N. W. from Longfellow Street to Six- teenth Street a width of 120 feet, according to the plan for the per- manent system of highways for the District of Columbia, and of Kennedy Street, N. W., through Lot numbered 800, Square No. 2718 with a width of 90 feet. 12. Because the petition in this cause filed does not allege that the proposed extension and widening of Colorado Avenue is accord- ing to the plan for the permanent system of highways for the Dis trict of Columbia. 13. Because the petition in this cause filed does not allege that the roposed extension and widening of Colorado Avenue is from Long: fellow Street to Sixteenth Street ax required by the Act of Congress. 14. Because the petition in this cause filed does not allege or show that the proposed extension and widening of Kennedy Street, N. W., through Lot numbered 800, Square 2718, is “with a width of 9 feet.” 15. Because the assessment of damages to property owners in this cause made by the verdict of the jury is excessive. 16. Because the assesement of benefits against the Lynchburg In- vestment Corporation made by the verdict of the jury in this cause js excessive. As LM _ 9 LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. ” 32 17, Because of errors of law committed in the trial of this cause before tlie jury and in instructing the jury. LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORA’ ION, By FRANK P. HARMAN, President, Appearing Especially for the Purposes of this Motion and None Other. J. J. DARLINGTON, W. C. SULLIVAN, Attys, Appearing Especially for the Purposes of thie Motion and None Others. District or CoLUMBIA, 8s: I, Frank P. Harman, on oath say that I am president of the Lynchburg Investment Corporation, and have read the foregoing motion to vacate by me subscribed with its name and as its president; that | know the contents of the foregoing and annexed motion and make this affidavit as the president of said Lynchburg Investment Corporation; that the statement- therein contained as of personal knowledge are true, and that those set forth upon information and belief I believe to be true. FRANK P. HARMAN, Subscribed and sworn to this 24th day of April, A. D. 1912. [seau.] IRWIN H. LINTON, Notary Public, D. C. Exceptions to Verdict. Filed April 24, 1912. ” * * * * ” ” Now comes the Ilolmes Central Realty Corporation, the owner of property against which benefits are assessed by the award or verdict of the jury in the above entitled cause, which was filed herein on the 4th day of April, 1911, and excepts and objects to the said award or verdict on the followin potocenty ip 1. The award of damages for the land is excessive, 2. The assessment of benefits as made against the property of this exceptant is excessive. 3. The Court failed to instruct the jury as provided by Section 491g of the Code of Laws for the District of Columbia that in de- termining the benefits to be assessed on this exceptant’s lots or par- cels of ground they should take into consideration the fact that parts of said lots of parcelx had been dedicated for the extension and widen- ing of said Colorado Avenue and Kennedy Street, and also the value of the said parts so dedicated as shown by plat duly recorded in office of Surveyor D. C. 4, Other errors of law were committed by the Court in inetructing the jury. — 5. Each and every of the several grounds of the motion to 33 vacate the said verdict this day filed by the Lynchburg In- vestment Corporation. LECKIE, COX & KRATZ, Attorneys for the Holmes Central Realty Corporation. 32 CUNO H. RUDOLPH ET AL. V8. Motion to Ratify and Confirm Verdict of Jury. Filed May 14, 1912. * * * * * ” ” Now come the Commissioners of the District of Columbia and move the Court to ratify and confirm the verdict of the jury hereto- fore filed herein notwithstanding the exceptions filed thereto, Kk. H. THOMAS, JAS. F. SMITH, Attorneys for Petitioners. Order Overruling Exceptions. Filed May 23, 1912. ” * * * * ” ” The cause came on upon the exceptions & objections filed to the verdict of the jury heretofore returned herein, and upon the motion to confirm said verdict notwithstanding said objections and excep- tions, and was argued by counsel, & considered by the Court, where- upon, it is by the court this 23rd day of May 1912 ordered that the said objections & exceptions be, and the same are each and all over- ruled and that the said verdict, awards and assessments be, and the same are hereby in all respects finally ratified and confirmed. By the Court: JOB BARNARD, Justice. From this order, an appeal is noted in open court by the excep- tants, the Holmes Realty Company and the Lynchburg Investment Corporation, and allowed by the Court, with penalty of appeal bond fixed at $100. each. By the Court: JOB BARNARD, Justice. Memoranda. June 11, 1912, Appeal bonds approved and filed. June 14, 1912, Time to file and settle bills of exceptions and tran- script of record extended to and including the 15th day of August, 1912. August 13, 1912, Bill of Exceptions submitted. LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AI. 33 34 Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Session resumed pursuant to adjournment, present presiding Mr, Justice Barnard. Tvuespay, August 13th, 1912. ” a” ” ” ” a a” Now comes the defendants, the Lynchburg Investment Corpora- tion by their Attorneys J. J. Darlington and W. C. Sullivan, and The Holmes Central Realty Corporation by their Attorneys, Leckie, Cox & Kratz, and prays the court to sign and make a part of the record their bill of exceptions taken during the trial of this case and submitted to the Court on this 13th day of August A. D. 1912, which is accordingly done nune pro tune. Filed August 13th, 1912. In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, No. 990, Dis. Doe. In re Tne Extension any Wipenixe or CoLorapo AVENUE AND KENNEDY Srreer NortTuwest, Bill of Exceptions. Be it remembered that the above entitled cause came on for trial on the Sth day of Mareh, A. D. 1912, before Mr. Justice Bernard and a jury of five persons which had theretofore been empanelled by the Court, James F. Smith, Esq., appearing for the petitioners, and various counsel appearing for different property owners, but no appearance being made or having been entered for or by the Lynch- burg Investment Corporation until, or except by the motion here- inafter set out; and no appearance having been entered by the Holines Central Realty Corporation before the verdict, counsel for which, however, was present in Court at the time said cause was ar- gued to the jury. And thereupon to maintain the issues upon their part joined, the petitioners and various ogres owners then appearing offered evi- dence tending to show the value of the land and premises sought to be condemned and the amount and extent of the benefit which would accrue to lands and premises in the District of Columbia by the ex- tension and widening of Colorado Avenue and of Kennedy Street, Northwest, as proposed in and by the petition in this cause filed, but ho testimony was offered tending to show the dedication by either the Lynchburg Investment Corporation or the Holmes Central Realty Corporation of any land or premises whatever, in the line of said Colorado Avenue or of said Kennedy Street for the opening, extension or widening thereof, or otherwise. And thereupon, the case being announced closed by the 35 petitioners and property owners then appearing, and the foregoing being all of the evidence given by the respective 5—163 Sle hapten Se teed w Naas aw, sth aires i - KERR eA ERIE LT aS PN NR IS AEN SNE at MS Biel 84 CUNO H. RUDOLPH ET AL. VS. ] parties, the petitioners, by their counsel requested the court to give the following instructions to the jury, and the court granted the said instructions: 1. The jury are instructed that, after ascertaining the amount of damages to be awarded to the owners of land to be taken for the extension of Colorado Avenue and Kennedy Street, Northwest, for which this proceeding has been instituted, they shall then proceed to assess the full amount of damages, together with the costs of this proceeding, as benefits, and to the extent of such benefits, against the lots, pieces or parcels of land on each side of Colorado Avenue and Kennedy Street to be extended, and upon any and all other lots, pieces or parcels of land which the jury may find will be bene- fitted by said extension of Colorado Avenue and Kennedy Street, as the jury may find said lots, pieces or parcels of land will be bene- fitted; and in determining the amounts to be assessed against said lots, pieces or parcels of land, the jury shall take into consideration the respective situations and topographical conditions of said lots, pieces or parcels of land, and the benefits and advantages they may severally receive from the said extension of the said avenue. By the extension of the avenue o1 street the jury are to understand its estab- lishment, laying out and completion for all the ordinary uses of a public thoroughfare. The jury are instructed, however, that it is not incumbent on them to assess benefits arbitrarily ; they should as- sess benefits only where they find an actual enhancement in value will accrue to the property by reason of the extension of said Avenue. 2. The several pieces or parcels of land to be taken for the pur- poses of this proceeding are to be appraised at their present fair mar- ket value, reference being had to the most advantageous use to which the property could be put by private individuals or corporations, By fair market value is meant the price for which the property could be sold, in cash or on terms equivalent to cash, by one who desires, but is not obliged to sell to one who desires, but is not obliged to buy. ‘And thereupon the property owners in attendance by their coun- sel, requested the court to give, but the court refused to give, the following instructions: 1. “The jury are instructed that the burden of proof rests upon the District of Columbia to show to the satisfaction of the jury the extent of the special benefits which will directly result to property from the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue and Kennedy Street, Northwest, as proposed herein.” And. to the refusal of the court to give the said instructions the property owners then present, by their counsel, objected and ex- cepted, and prayed the court to note the said exception upon its min- utes, and the same at the request of counsel for the property owners present, was then and there duly noted on the minutes of the court. And thereupon the said property owners, by their counsel, Te quested the court to give and the court did give the following instrue- tions to the jury: 36 8. The jury are instructed that only special and direct benefits capable of present estimate and reasonable computa LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. 85 tion, are to be assessed, and contingent and speculative benefits aris- ing in the future from the actual opening and improvement of Colo- rado Avenue, as extended, are not to be considered. 3. The jury are instructed that the several lots, or parcels of land to be condemned are to be appraised at their fair market value, with reference to the most valuable use or uses to which they can or may be lawfully put. And the market value of said lots. pieces or parcels of land is not limited to the use or uses to which they are now applied by the owners thereof, or to their present income from such prop- erty, and if any of said lots, pieces or parcels of land, by reason of its location, surroundings, natural advantages or intrinsic character, is peculiarly adapted to some particular use or uses, the circumstance or circumstances which make up such adaptability shall be con- sidered by the jury. By fair market value is meant what the prop erty would sell for, in cash, or on terms equivalent to cash, when of. fered for sale by one who desires but is not obliged to sell, to one who desires but is not obliged to buy. 1. Where a part only of the lot is taken, the owner should be awarded its value when considered with reference to the whole lot and as a part thereof. And thereupon the said property owners, by their counsel, re- quested the court to give, and the court refused to give, the following instruction to the jury: 5. The jury are instructed that where only a part of a lot or par- cel is taken and they find that by the taking thereof the remaining portion of the lot or parcel is damaged, they shall allow for such damage to the owner for the remaining part, and in estimating such damages the measure thereof is the depreciation of the market value of the remaining portion of such lot or parcel of land: and any such damages shall be in addition to the damages allowed for the value of the part actually taken. And to the refusal of the court to grant the said instruction, the property owners then present, by their counsel, duly objected and excepted, and prayed the court to note the said exception upon its minutes, and the same at the request of counsel for the property owners then present was then and there duly noted on the minutes of the court. And thereupon the said property owners, by their counsel, re- quested the court to give, and the court did give, the following in- structions to the jury: 6. The jury are instructed that, in assessing benefits, they cannot indulge in vague speculation or conjecture, but can only assess against the property such benefits only, if any, as, in their opinion, the property assessed may be benefitted by reason of the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, Northwest, from Longfellow Street to Sixteenth Street, and of Kennedy Street, Northwest. through Lot numbered 800, in square No, 2718, over and above the ordinary benefit which the community at large or general public may derive therefrom. 37 7. The jury are instructed that, in order to find that any lot or parcel of land will be specially benefitted as distinct = z . WA i oa OO nt a i 5 id _ ~n 36 CUNO H. RUDOLPH ET AL. VS. from the general benefit accruing to other lands, they must find either that the fair market value of such parcel of land will be in- creased or that such parcel will be made av-ilable for some use for which it is not now available by reason of the withdrawal from pri- vate ownership of the land to be condemned and its appropriation for public use as a street. 8. The jury are instructed that the benefits as well as the damages are to be estimated as of the date of the appropriation or taking of the land sought to be condemned. And thereupon, the foregoing being all of the instructions pre- sented to the Court for submission to the jury, and the instructions above indicated as having been granted by the court being all of the instructions then and there given to the jury, the case was sub- mitted to the jury, which thereafter returned their verdict award- ing damages and assessing benefits as of record in this cause, which verdict by this reference thereto is hereby made a part of this bill of exceptions. And there-pon the Lynchburg Investment Corporation filed in the said cause its motion in the words and figures following, to vacate the said verdict: oe j Motion to Vacate Verdict. Now comes the Lynchburg Investment Corporation, a body cor- porate of the State of Virginia, appearing xpecially for the purpose of this motion and for none other. and, respectfully showing to the court that it was not made a party to the petition filed herein. that the said petition contained no prayer for process against il, and that it had no notice of the pendency of this proceeding either actual or constructive, unless said notice is to be implied from. the fact of publication, moves the court to vacate the verdict of the jury filed herein. in so far as it is concerned, for the following reasons: 1. Notice of publication passed heretofore, to wit. the 28th day of November, A. D. 1911, was defective and insufficient to give the court any jurisdiction over the Lynchburg Investment Corporation or its real estate. because it did not give notice that an assessment would be made of benefits which bad actually been sustained. but only the benefits which “the jury might find will he” sustained “by the said extension and widening.” 2. Because the petition in this cause does not seek the assessment of benefits which are actually sustained by the property. but, in- stead, an assessment of the benefits resulting from the proposed extension and widening. 3. Because public notice of not less than twenty days was not given of the institution of this proceeding, by advertising in three daily newspapers published in the District of Columbia, as provided by section 491-e of the Code, and consequently the court 38 never acquired jurisdiction to assess benefits against the said . Lynchburg Investment Corporation or any of the land owned y it. 4. Because the order of publication passed herein on the 28th | LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. 37 day of November, A. D., 1911, did not conform to the requirements of the said section 491-c, but, instead, warned and commanded the parties to appear on January 9th, 1912, and required that a copy of that order “be published once in the Washington Law Reporter and on six secular days in the Washington Evening Star, the Wash- ington Herald, and the Washington Post, commencing at least 20 days before the said 9th day of January, \. D. 1912.” and the said order was only published in each of the said papers six times, which was not “public notice of not less than twenty days.” 5. Because, though the order of publication passed on November 28th, A. D. 1911, required that it be published in the three news- papers therein mentioned on six secular days, it was only published in the Evening Star on five secular days, one of the six publications being had on Saturday, December 2nd. in the afternoon of that day, which was a legal hofiday and therefore not a secular day under the order, 6, Because the said Lynchburg Investment Corporation was no- where named in the petition in this cause or in the papers annexed thereto, was not served with process, and had no notice of the pen- dency of this proceeding until after the conclusion of the hearing. 7. Because notice of publication did not constitute due process of law against the Lynchburg Investment Corporation, because of the insufficiency. in the several respects above noted. of the publication actually had. and also because of the unjust discrimination made in the statute between proceedings against the owners of land to be condenmmed and the owners of land to be assessed for benefits in that section 491-¢ specifically provides that in addition to said public notice the court shall cause a copy of said notice to be served by the United States Marshal/ for the District of Columbia. or his deputies, upon each owners of the land to be condemned as ean be found by the Marshal, or his deputies. within the District of Columbia, and upon the tenants and occupants of the same: but makes no provision for actual notice of any kind to owners of land to be assessed. and no atfermpt was made to give such notice to the Lynchburg Investment Corporation. though the petitioners well knew its interest by virtue of the fact that it has for many years paid taxes on large parcels of land in the proximity of the land sought to be condemned in this proceeding, and has for a long time appeared upon the assessment books of the District of Columbia as such owner, and it is still the owner, among other property in the District of Columbia. of lots numbered 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35, in Square No, 2804, Lots numbered I, 12, 18. 14. 16, 17, 18 and 19 in Square No. 2715, Lots numbered 2,9, 10, 11, and 14 in Square No. 2716, Lots numbered 31, 32, 33, 44,35, 36, 37 and 38, in Square No. 2803. Lots numbered 29, 30, 31, 82. 38, 34, 35 and 36 in Square 2802 and Lots numbered 39 15, 17. 18 and 19, in Square No, 2801, against all of which assessinent for benefits has been made by the verdict of the jury returned in this cause. 8. Because. though section 491-9 of the Code expressly provides that “where part of any lot. piece, parcel or tract of land has been dedicated for the opening, extension, widening or straightening of — a street; avenue, road or highway, the jury in determining whether the remainder of said lot, piece, parcel or tract is to be assessed for benefits and the amount of the benefits, if any, to be assessed thereon, shall also take into consideration the fact of such dedication, and the value of the land so dedicated,” and though the said Lynecb- burg Investment Corporation by sub-division plat duly recorded in Book 36, page 2. of the records of the office of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia, heretofore, to wit, the 10th day of September, 1909. dedicated for the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, Northwest, more than fifty thousand square feet of ground, as will more fully and in detail appear by reference to the said recorded sub-division, which it is hereby prayed may be taken and read as a part of this motion, with leave hereafter to file a certified copy thereof, the fact of dedication was not brought to the attention of the jury by the petitioners. who well knew the facts, and the Lynch- burg Investment Corporation, by reason of its lack of notice of these proceedings, had no opportunity to do so, and in consequence the jury in this case did not take into consideration the fact of such dedication or the value of the land so dedicated, and were not in- structed by the court so to do. 9. Because the court instructed the jury that they should assess benefits upon all lots, pieces, or parcels of land “which the jury might find will be benefited by the said extension of Colorado Ave- nue and Kennedy Street,” and, in the same connection, further in- structed the jury that “by the extension of the avenue and street the jury are to understand its establishment, laying out and completion for all the ordinary uses of a public thoroughfare ;” instead of tn- structing the jury as should have been done that they should assess such benefits as they should find had actually accrued from the pro- posal of the contemplated extension and widening; and that they should not consider the proposed extension and widening as laid out and completed for the ordinary uses of a public thoroughfare, but should only consider whatever actual enhancement of the mar- ket value of the land had accrued from the -aid widening, extension or either of them. 10. Because the court instructed the jury that they might find and assess benefits if it should find “either that the fair market value of such parcel of land will be increased or that such parcel will be made available for some use for which it is not now available by reason of the withdrawal from private ownership of the land to be condemned and its appropriation for public use as a street.” 11. Because the petition in this cause filed nowhere alleged that the land sought to be condemned is necessary for the extension and widening of Colorado Avenue, N. W. from Longfellow Street to Sixteenth Street. N. W.. with a width of 120 feet. according to the plan for the permanent system of highways for the District 40 of Columbia, and of Kennedy Street, N. W., through lot numbered 800, Square No. 2718, with a width of 90 feet. 12. Because the petition in this cause filed does not allege that the proposed extension and widening of Colorado Avenue is accord- z # LR epee i oe pone 38 CUNO H. RUDOLPH ET AL, VS. ee ing to the plan for the permanent system of highways for the Dis- trict of Columbia. 13. Because the petition in this cause filed does not allege that the proposed extension and widening of Colorado Avenue is from Long- fellow Street to Sixteenth Street as required by the Act of Congress. 14. Because the petition in this cause filed does not allege or show that the proposed extension and widening of Kennedy Street, N. W., through Lot numbered 800, Square No. 2718, is “with a width of 90 feet.” 15, Because the assessment of damages to property owners in this cause made by the verdict of the jury is excessive. lj, Because the assessment of benefits against the Lynchburg In- vestment Corporation made by the verdict of the jury in thix cause is eXCessiVe, 17. Because of errors of law committed in the trial of this cause before the jury and in instructing the jury. LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT COKPORATION, By FRANK P. HARMAN (Signed), President, LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL. 39 MeL Pe Appearing Specially for the Purposes of This Motion and None Other. J.J. DARLINGTON axp W. C. SULLIVAN, Aff ys Appearing Specially for the Purpose of This Motion and None Other. Disrricer or CoLuMBIA, ss: 1. Frank P. Tlarman, on oath say that I am president of the Lynchburg Investment Corporation, and have read the foregoing motion to vacate by me subseribed, in its name and as its president, that I know the contents of the foregoing and annexed motion to vacate and make this affidavit as the president of the said Lynch- lury Investment Corporation; that the statements therein contained ws of personal knowledge are true, and that those set forth upon in- ormation and belief 1 believe to be true. FRANK P. HARMAN. (Signed.) Sulscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of April, \. D. 1912. | NOTARIAL SEAL. | IRWIN H. LINTON (Signed). Notary Public, D. (C. Copy of the plat mentioned in said motion and filed and sub- initted to the court is hereto annexed, marked “Lynchburg 41 Investinent Corporation Exhibit,” and is hereby made a part of this bill of exceptions. The Holmes Central Realty Corporation also filed its motion in the words and figures following, to vacate the verdict - 40 CUNO H. RUDOLPH ET AL. Vs. Exceptions to Verdict. Now comes the Holmes Central Realty Corporation, the owner 0 property against which benefits are assessed by the award or verdi of the jury in the above entitled cause, which was filed herein on th Ith day of April. 1911, and excepts and objects to the said award o verdict on the following grounds: 1. The award of damages for the land taken is excessive. 2. The assessment of benefits as made against the property of thi exceptant is excessive. 4. The Court failed to instruct the jury as provided by Sectio i1-y of the Code of Laws for the District of Columbia that in de iermining the benefits to be assessed on this exceptant’s lots or par- celx of ground they should take into consideration the fact. that parts of said lots or parcels had been dedicated for the extension and widening of said Colorado Avenue and Kennedy Street, and alxo the value of the said parts so dedicated, as shown by plat duly recorded in the office of the Surveyor for the District of Columbia. 4. Other errors of law were committed by the Court in instruct- ing the jury. ©». Each and every of the several grounds of the motion to vacate the aid verdict this day filed by the Lynchburg Investment Cor- poration. LECKIE, COX & KRATZ, Attorneys for the Holmes Central Realty Corporation. Copy of the plat mentioned in said motion which was filed and ~ubmitted to the court is hereto annexed, marked “Holmes Central Realty Corporation Exhibit,” and is hereby made a part of this bill of exceptions. And the said motions duly coming on to be heard, were, by the court, on, to wit the 23d day of May. A. D. 1912. overruled. and the ~aid verdict of the jury was then and there by the court ratified and confirmed, as al. & ’ ll INDEX. Page i ie PC ro. cn cwa sap arn chars e una veew kb dyre 9 Briscoe ws. Commissioners, 221 U, S., 547............... art ee 23 Central Savings Bank vs. Mayor, etc., of Baltimore, 71 Md., 515. 7 Columbia Heights Realty Co. vs. McFarland, 217 U. S., 547, 560. 18-23 cy Me Be EE ap EA ey ae en 16 District of Columbia vs. Cemetery, 5th Apps. D. C., 497........ 18 Drainage District vs. Campbell 154 Mo., 151.................. 11-16 German Bank vs. Stumpf, 73 Mo., 311, 314.................... 11-16 ey ee eer 10 Henderson vs. Macfarland, 33 D. C. Apps., 317............ es 21 Jenkins, Assignee, vs. Pierce, 98 TIl., 646..................... 3 8 a eS a ce 10 Land Co. ve. Loan & Trust Co., 52 Neb., 410..... 2... ccc csncee i Se RIL QUO oss ca pas dew nee doden whee ces 12-16 wre Gp Temiment Demmi, B79... ooo kis coca ccccncvciocre: i Mayor, ete., of Baltimore vs. Little Sisters of the Poor, 56 Md., ie hae ea Ee eee hee eae Sh A Ree ee REDE dl ob ei ad we wwe on’ ” Mayor, ete., of Baltimore vs. The Smith & Senwartz Brick Co., eM sh oe Sean As ian pisw oiled seb oie o dros aig o eS oad wha 22 MeGilvery vs. City of Lewiston, 13 Idaho, 338................ 10 Metropolitan Ry. Co. vs. D. C., 195 U. 8., 322, 332.............. 17 Muskingum Valley Turnpike Co. vs. Ward, 1% Ohio, 120........ 2 Paige & Jones, ‘* Taxation by Assessment,’’ 76%............... 6 Pa ee a ee. CO: Ve Bhipley, 71 Ma. BIS. 2h ecece soci s Roval Ims. Co. vs. South Park Commissioners, 175 TIL, 491...... 7 me, SO: TMS EER oo tc gp oc'ee oho oc ov €ecebayiowke 11-15 We LON WE POMEL PO Bee Bn, DOO wo obs noe vecckweoceiseves 16 SO, I NES MOR oo noc b ce seckeie asvireae esac aye 14 Wight vs. Davidson, 181 U. S., 371.............cecccccocceceee 15-20 Wee FR ere, 1D 5, BOO. oo is keke oad ces or co mnencess 10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OctToser Term, 1912. No. 163. CUNO H. RUDOLPH, JOIIN A. JOHNSTON, axp CHESTER HARDING, Peririongrs, v8. LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION awnp HOLMES CENTRAL REALTY CORPORATION, KESPONDENTS. BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS. Statement of the Case. Under the authority and direction of a special act of Congress approved June 30, 1911, entitled “An act to author- ize the extension and widening of Colorado avenue north- west from Longfellow street to Sixteenth street, and of Ken- nedy street northwest, through lot numbered 800, square 2715" (37 Stat., 1), the Commissioners of the District of Columbia instituted condemnation proceedings in accord- 1x a ~ ance with the provisions of sections 491¢ and 491n, inclusive, of the Code of Law for the District of Columbia for the extension of the streets contemplated by the aforesaid act of Congress. Section 491¢ of the Code provides as foilows: “The court shall cause public notice of not less than twenty days to be given of the institution of such proceedings, by advertisement in three daily newspapers published in the District of Columbia, which notice shall warn and require all persons hav- ing any interest in the proceeding to appear in court at a date to be named in said notice. and to continue in attendance until the court shall have made its final order ratifying and confirming the award of damages, and the assessment of benefits by the jury herein provided for; and in addition to such public notice, said court shall cause a copy of said notice to be served by the United States marshal for the District of Columbia, or his deputies, upon such own- ers of the land to be condemned as can be found by said marshal or his deputies, within the District of Columbia. and upon the tenants and occupants of the same.” A notice and order of publication issued from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding a district court. on the 28th day of November, 1911 (R., 7), which notice warned and commanded all persons interested to appear in court on or before the 9th day of Jannary, A. D. 1912, at 10 o'clock a. m., and further provided that a copy of the no- tice and order he published once in the Washington Law Reporter and on six secular ays in the Washington Even- ing Star, the Washington Herald. and the Washington Post, commencing at least twenty days before the 9th day of January, 1912. The notices were duly published as ordered, and copies were personally served upon a number of property owners, but not upon the respondents, neither of them being the owner of any of the land to le condemned. The Holmes Central Realty Company, one of the respondents, however, participated at the hearing of the case before the jury. The proceedings were duly prosecuted and resulted in a verdict (R., 16-27) in which an aggregate of $34,139.37 was awarded for the land taken and an aggregate of $34.575.55 was assessed as benefits, Of the latter an azereeate of $3.525.10 was assessed acainst the lands of the Hulmes Realty Company and an aggregate of $3,741 00, covering 28 parcels of land. against the lands of the Lynchburg Investment Corporation. Section 491h of the Code provides: “The said court shall hear and determine any ob- jection or exceptions that may be filed to any verdict of the inrv and shall have power to vacate and set any verdict aside in whole or in part. when satisfied that it is unjust or unreasonable. in which event the court shall cause a new jury of five experienced, judicious, disinterested men, * * *, Provided, That if vacated in part, the residue of the verdict as to the land condemned or assessed > 21 In Henderson vs. Macfarland, 33 Apps. D. C., page 317, the court said: “The act under consideration in the light of these authorities must be held an adjudication by Congress of the necessity for the extension of Ilarvard street, and of the benefits accruing to adjacent lots by such opening. Such an adjudication in the absence of any evidence that it is substantially inequitable will not be inquired into by the courts.” In the Bauman vs. Ross case, 167 U. S., at page 548, this court said: “The class of lands to be assessed for the purpose may be either determined by the legislature itself, by defining a territorial district, or by other designation ; or it may be left by the lecislature to the determina- tion of commissioners, and be made to consist of such lands, and such only, as the commissioners shall de- cide to be benefited. * * * * * * * “The rule of apportionment among the parcels of land benefited also rests within the discretion of the legislature. and may he directed to be in proportion to the position, the frontage, the area or the market value ofthe lands. or in proportion to the benefits as estimated by commissioners. . * + . * * * “The class of lands to be assessed is defined by di- recting that the aforesaid sum ‘shall he charged unon the lands benefited by the laving out and onening of such highway or reservation, or part thereof.’ and that the jury ‘shall ascertain and determine what property is thereby benefited.’ And the rule of as- sessment is defined bv the further direction that the jurv ‘shall assess aeainst each pareel which it shall find to be so henefited its proper proportional part of ‘the sum aforesaid” * * *” This law is emasculated by the construction that the jury may not find benefits unless the Commissioners of the Dis- ees RAO TTE AES BR ines. 22 trict of Columbia successfully sustain the burden of proving their existence. The main reliance of the appellants on this proposition is the case of The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore rs. The Smith and Schwartz Brick Company (S80 Md. 458) which was an appeal from the judement of the city court upon the verdict of the jury therein, one of the errors al- leged being that the court had erroneously instructed the jury that the burden of proof rested upon the City Council of Baltimore to show to the satisfaction of the jury “the ex- tent of the increase in the market value” of the property which was assessed for benefits. The Court of Appeals in that connection said, page 474: “We think this prayer was unobjectionable. The burden was on the city to establish the benefits this property was to be charged with. It certainiv could not be said that the burden was east on the company to prove that it was not benefited as much as the city claimed it was. There is no presumption of law in these cases that the assessment of the commissioners is correct.” This case was apparently a trial before a common-law jury upon issues of fact presénted by the pleadings. The question of the burden of proof depends upon the fundamental proposition that a party who affirms a faet must prove it. The jury in that case were evidently re- stricted to a consideration of the evidence adduced before them. The case at bar is a special proceeding providing for an award of damages and assessment of benefits by a jury of five experienced, judicious, disinterested men, who are re- quired to go upon the land and view it, and then. after “hearing such evidence as may be offered to them bv the parties interested or the District of Columbia. to return their verdict, in writing, signed by them or a majority of them, setting forth the amount found to he due and awarded 'y them: as damages for the land condemned and the lots. an 23 pieces, or parcels of land benefited and the amounts of the av-essmnent for benefits against the same.” In the case of the Columbia Heights Realty Company vs. The Commissioners of the District of Columbia (217 U. S.. D47). a case involving the validity of assessments only, re- ferring to the findings of a similar jury, the court, respect- ing the authority to review the findings of such a jury. said. page 550: “The jury went upon and viewed the premises: the court did not. The duty to review did not involve mere error in judgment as to the extent of enhance- ment tn value, for the judement of the jurv mani- fe-tly rested upon much which could not he brought lefore the court. The jury was expected to exercise its own judement, derived from personal knowledce and from the view of the premises, as well as from the ovinion evidence which might be brought before them.” The controlling circumstance in this case is that there has been here a legislative determination of Lenefits. There has been much discussion and many decisions have been ren- dered as to the conclusiveness of a legislative determination of benefits. In this jurisdiction the law remains as settled in the case of Wight rs. Davidson (181 U. S., 380), re- cently affirmed and reaflirmed in the cases of Columbia Heights Realty Company vs. The Commissioners of the Dis- trict of Columbia (supra) and Briscoe rs. The Commission- ers of the District of Columbia (221 U. S.. 547). It has been the almost uniform practice of the courts before whom these cases are tried, however, to adopt a less stringent con- struction of these provisions. In the case at bar (R.. $5) the concluding sentence of the first instruction granted reads: “The jury are instructed, however, that it is not incumbent on them to assess benefits arbitrarily: thev should assess benefits only where they find an actual enhancement in value will accrue to the property by reason of the extension of said avenue.” Be Se sO ee eet ARTY 2 IRI EER 24 This instruction, it is submitted, meets every objection that can be raised to the refusal of the instruction as to the burden of proof. Furthermore, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia invariably assume the responsibility of satisfying the jury as to the extent, both in area and in amount, of benefits resulting from a given improvement. The record (R., 33) states that the petitioners and various property owners offered evidence tending to show the value of the land and premises sought to be condemned and the amount and extent of the benefits which would accrue to lands and premises in the District of Columbia by reason of the extension and widening of the streets involved. But whatever difference of opinion may exist on the ques- tion of the conclusiveness of a legislative determination of benefits, there can be none, we submit, that such a legislative finding raises at least a presumption of their existence which dispenses with aflirmative proof. In this case the petition of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia makes no affirmation as to the existence or extent of benefits. It sets up the provisions of the law and states that under the direc- tion of the law they are making this application. They have no discretion about it. They ask the court to cause notice to be given, a jury summoned, and the other acts to be done which the law requires. If the contention of the appellants is sound, and the Commissioners offered no proof, or insufti- cient proof, as to the existence or extent of benefits, it would be the duty of the court to dismiss the proceeding. This, we submit, would be in contravention rather than in accordance with the provisions of the law. 25 IV. The Court of Appeals erred in directing the setting aside of the verdict in toto, notwithstanding only two parties ap- pealed. The contention that the necessary result of setting aside the assessment returned against the appellants would be the vacation of the assessment portion of the verdict in toto is answered by the provision of section 491h of the Code, which provides that the court— “shall hear and determine any objections or excep- tions that may be filed to any verdict of the jury, and shall have power to vacate and set any verdict aside, in whole or in part, when satisfied that it is unjust or unreasonable, in which event the court shall cause a new jury of five experienced, judicious, disinterested men, who shall be freeholders in the District of Co- lumbia, * * * who shall proceed to ascertain the damages or assess the benefits, or both, as the case may be, in respect of the land as to which the verdict may be vacated, * * * Provided, That if vacated in part, the residue of the verdict as to the land con- demned or assessed shall not be affected thereby.” This contention is also met by the decision of this court in the case of Briscoe vs. MacFarland (32 App. D. C., 167), which was a suit in equity to set aside an assessment on the ground that the order of the District court confirming the assessment was void for want of jurisdiction. That was a proceeding under the law which entitled any party who was dissatisfied with the verdict of the first jury to a rehearing upon an expression of dissatisfaction. The assessment com- plained of in that case was confirmed by the court, notwith- standing such an expression of dissatisfaction thereto; but this court held that the assessee not having appealed from the judgment of confirmation was bound thereby. the neces- 4x Se ee as — eas Be "EL AEINES, BS LITOCL INEM 5 | mR STRATE EO RELERE ar dear hase teat URE Loe TO ay: Whe a ce TeetichitePRcnar APs wel 26 sary inference being that such an assessee could not get the benefit of a successful appeal prosecuted by another party. The rather labored discussion by appellants of the practical difficulties of maintaining the equation in cases of partial re- assessment is a subject with which this court is not concerned. Conclusion. The judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia should be reversed and the judgment of the Dis- trict Court should be affirmed. CONRAD H. SYME, Corporation Counsel; JAS, FRANCIS SMITH, Assistant, Attorneys for Petitioners. (27546) Be . Me ¥ ee f ehae. Sos he | a Suprema Court a _ 4% ¢ ‘ GA Be i ee > vy a wie ae SS ie Ane” © es Soe f by gor ah oer MES. mauee = ae ‘i ¥ ; > ; ee és ‘ =! a : Oe coer f ‘ ay a bs . . % os 8 3 bere > SUEREME count. or mt semen soars. i. } 24. y aaNet eh 9 ; Py » ¢ f *: ; tet 2+ es ra . Pr and P i 4. ’ r. ; * : Me te ' - ‘ th TT ‘5 : ype fs rie aer wht, FS i s : ASR ial de rae, f ‘ e ot? 4 Evie + y. yt : ‘ ; x * bo Re Te eS | it RO ABB 8h ci tA tans we ‘ ae tow g { posh ’ Ac. any 2 vn . af A ™~ . te ‘ * 7. 7 ae His oy tate , ame ‘ ' An Oe hy a : nea 2 ‘ ‘ - . % s 7 » ft, x ef / fd . © “ Ba ag 7 . 4 Via j oe * I ¥ , id CUNO # ‘RUDOLPH, ‘JOHN A. JOHNSTON, axp » Cure: : | ” HARDING, ie RS Uae — LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION. ait HOLM : - CENTRAL cay ma ers i A . 2 : y * 2 Z : : at UB? oF cases SHOWING PRACTICE. ‘AB 10 NOTICE BY: : UBLICATION: IN CONDEMNATION, © CASES im STREETS. AND ALEVE: ; Ce R® - , (ee Ae ee ry ’ 3 owe ie S *_ Corporation Counsel, D, ets .. rh ‘JAMES FRANCIS SMITH, St7) Assistant Corporation Cownsel,- ms Wi, ws 4 Peete 3 for ene ae ae x IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Ocrover Term, 1912. No. 163. CUNO H. RUDOLPH, JOHN A. JOHNSTON, axv CHESTER HARDING, Peririoners, v8. LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION axp HOLMES CENTRAL REALTY CORPORATION, Responpen ts. LIST OF CASES SHOWING PRACTICE AS TO PUBLICATION. Following are lists of land condemnation cases instituted by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, between the years 1900 and 1912, inclusive, in which the statutory provision that notice of “not less than ten days” or notice of “not less than twenty days” was construed by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia as meaning that such number of days should elapse between the pub- lication of notice and the return day. In the street extension cases the court ordered the notice published six times. In alley cases publication was ordered to be made usually but once. In none of the cases was the publication ordered to be made continuously for the number of days mentioned in the Statute. In Rosa Wallach et al. vs. Henry B. Macfarland et al. in the Su- preme Court of the United States, October Term, 1909, No. 148, an example of the notice used appears at page 16 of the record. This notice was under the provision for publication of the act of June 6, 1900. ist of Condemnation Cases for Streets in Which the Notice by Publication Consisted of Six Advertisements in Lach Newspaper. Title. Widening Columbia road Act Con.June 6, 1900 June Columbia road and 16th street “ “cc “ Sixteenth street eee fess Eighth st. or Wright’s rd. “ “ 23rd street ste: Euclid place are Op Wyoming ave, and 23d street it ot Albemarle street he i Oey Kalorama avenue nee ton, V street, widening re an North Brightwood TYourteeuth street 30, 1905 Zoological Pk. Con. high- way M street fy street “ “ee ““ Kalorama ave. to join with Prescott place “ “ “ce 19th street ron Plaza and Newton streets tittenhouse street “OS Rhode Island avenue Feb. Kalorama road Euclid street 16th and Columbia road 16th and Piney Branch Massachusetts avenue Law. Apr. 22, 1904 May, D. C. Appro, Act for year ending June Act Con. Apr.28, 1904 Oct. 15, Act Con.Mch. 3, 1905 Nov., June 29, 1905 July 20, June 11, 1906 June 29, June 30, 1906 Oct, 29, June 30, 1906 Oct. )). C. Appro. Act for the year ending instituted. 2, 1900 6, 1900 July 12, 1900 6, 1900 Aug, 21, 1900 1904 22,1904 May 5, 1904 28, 1904 + 7 1904 28,1904 May 9, 1904 28, 1904 May, 1904 28, 1904 May, 1904 28, 1904 May, 1904 June, 1904 Oct., 1904 1904 1905 3) 1905 Nov., 1905 3, 1905 Nov., 3, 1905 Mch. 31, June 29, 3,1905 Nov. 2, 19, 1905 Mch. 22, 1905 1905 1905 1905 1906 1906 1906 1906 29, 1906 June 30, 1907 Aug, 23, 1906 Widening Columbia road Jan. 9,1907 Feb. 6, 1907 Second and W streets Jan, 9,1907 Feb. 7, 1907 Meridian ~~ as “ * Jan. 29, 1907 4th street N. E. Jan. 22, 1907 Kenyon street = * Pe eee 23d street from U to Kal- orama road Jan. 9,1907 Feb. 19, 1907 6th, 7th and Franklin streets N. E. Jan. 9,1907 Feb. 26, 1907 Macomb street Jan. 21,1907 Feb. 23, 1907 _—_—— 721 Harvard street Fessenden street Waterside drive School street Geneseo place Monroe street, Anacostia Dis. Appro. Warren and 45th streets T street.formerly W street Forty-fifth street Monroe street Mills avenue Albemarle street Piney Branch parkway between 16th street and Rock Creek road New Ilampshire avenue Park place Bladensburg road W and Adams street Widening G street 9d and WN. W. Girard street N. W. 20th street New York avenue Rittenhouse street Mass, avenue S. E. Ninth street Minn. avenue S. E. Anacostia River road 41st street N. W. Park place Newton place 13th street building line Columbia road 23d street and R streets S. E, Belmont road and Water- side drive Military road Princeton place Nineteenth street lst street Anacostia River Jan. 22,1907 Feb. 26, 1907 s & * te. 8 ee « & 4 Meh. 18, 1907 Feb. 8, 1907 Mch, 5, 1907 Jan. 9.1907 Feb. 23, 1907 Act June 17, 1905 Apr. 9, 1907 Feb, 26,1907 Mch. 22, 1907 Feb, 27, 1907 Apr. 27, 1907 os “« & Meh. 18, 1907 Mch, 2, 1907 Apr. 12, 1907 «" @ App 22) 1907 “« « & Mech. 15, 1907 Feb. 27,1997 Apr. 16, 1907 Feb. 27, 1907 Apr. 29. 1907 Mch. 1, 1907 Apr. 18, 1907 Jan. 9,1907 Mch. 10, 1908 Feb, 28, 1907 Dec. 30, 1907 May 23, 1908 July 16, 1908 Jar. 9, 1907 Feb. 26, 1909 Mech. 30, 1909 Mech. 3, 1899 Apr. 8, 1909 Feb. 6,1909 * | 1909 Feb, 25, 1909 1909 “ ‘ “ “ Feb, 26, 1909 . Feb, 25, 1909 ed Mch. 4, 1909 "9 Mch. 23, 1910 1910 Feb. 21, 1910 4 Feb. 27,1910 “ June 21, 1906 e Mch, 23, 1910 “ Mch. 2, 1910 * Mch, 2, 1910 “ Mch. 23, 1910 6“ Apr, 20,1910 . May 18, 1910 “ June 11,1910 5 May 10, 1910 a Widening Cedar street D. C. Appro. Act Mass. avenue N. W. 17th street N. FE. Extension 13th street June Mch. Feb. May 18, 1910 22, 1910 4,1911 20,1911 * Precise dates can be ascertained from the record. 1001 1025 1040 1045 1050 List of { Interior Park, sq.534 D. C. Appro. Act Mch, 2, 1911 - Van Buren street Mch, 3,1911 * Extension of Q street D. C. Appro. Act Mch. 2, 1911 ° Zoological pk. entrance D. C. Appro. Act Mech, 2, 1911 . Colorado ave. and Ken- nedy street June 30,1911 . Bldlensburg road 1912 Building line Col. rd. June 21, 1906 . Lamont street Mch. 1, 1912 ° Underwood street July 17,1912 ‘3 Building line Park rd. June 21, 1906 = Condemnation Cases for Alleys and Minor Streets in Which the Notice by Publication Consisted of One Advertisement in Each Newspaper. Proceedings Instituted under Section 1608 to 1608 1 of the District Code. When Title. instituted. Alley, block 6, Ingleside Apr. 29, 1905 Alley, block 41, North Grounds Columbian University, block 42, University Park. | May 11, 1905 Alley, through part block 12, Meridian Hill and part of block 8, Washington Heights. July 10, 1905 Brown street (a minor street). Nov. 16, 1905 Alley in square 61. Dee, 4, 1905 Columbia Heights and block 19, Todd & Brown’s subdivision. Apr. 7, 1906 Widening alley in square 750, June 2, 1906 Opening alley in block 23, Columbia Teights. June 2, 1906 Opening alley from Euclid street to Douglas street between block 18, Meridian Hill and block 45, University Park. June 12, 1906 Alley in block 32, Columbia Heights. July 25, 1906 Minor street in square 512. Sept. 6, 1906 Minor street in square 650. Sept. 10, 1906 Minor street in square 875. Sept. 27, 1906 Alley in Washington Heights and Widow’s Mite. Oct. 16, 1906 Minor street in square 1020. Nov. 15, 1906 Alley in square 870. Nov. 10, 1906 Condemnation of alley in square 801, made a minor street from M to N streets. Nov. 15, 1906 - oo Alley in block 10, Todd & Brown’s subdi- vision. Dec, 10, 1906 Alley through squares 2668 and 2669. Dec. 14, 1906 Alley in square 1046. Jan. 31, 1905 Alley through square 2855, May 16, 1907 Alley, entering square 1294 from T street. June 10, 1907 Alley in square 905. June 19, 1907 Alley in square 743. Dec. 6, 1907 Alley in square 2844. Nov. 21, 1907 Alley in square 807. Dec. 26, 1907 Alley in square 347, Apr. 14, 1909 Alley in square 2666. Mch, 20, 1908 Alley in square 1036. July 16, 1908 Alley in square 3516. July 3, 1908 Alley in square 2847, June 27, 1908 \lley in squares 3530-3526, Oct. 12, 1908 Alley in square 127. Aug. 27, 1905 Alley in square 2854. Dec. 8, 1906 Alley in square 2859. Oct, 30, 1908 799 Establishment of building line from Park road to School street N. W. Nov. 25, 1908 809 Alley in square 2834, Nov. 30, 1908 S10 Alley in square 2580, Mch. 22, 1909 816 Alley in square 1035. Apr. 28, 1909 a Alley in square 32, Apr. 27, 1909 866 Alley in square 2615. Mch. 17, 1910 867 Allev in square 2862. Mch. 17, 1910 S68 Widening alley in square 2581. ° 1910 879 Alley in square 2583. 1910 S84 Alley in square 734. 1910 855 Alley in square 211, 1910 886 Alley in square 2863 1910 897 Alley in square 2833. 1910 898 Alley in square 252. 1910 899 Alley in square 1043. 1910 901 Alley in square 3039. 1910 915 Alley in square 1014. 1910 916 Alley in square 2861. 1910 942 Alley in square 100. 1911 960 Alley in square 2563. 1911 951 Alley in square 2527. 1911 972 Alley in square 518. 1911 973 Alley in square 970. 1911 974 Alley in square 794. 1911 975 Alley in square 812. 1911 976 Alley in square 111, 1911 * Precise dates can be ascertained from the record. 977 Alley in square 2557. 1911 988 Alley in square 2843. 1911 998 Alley in square 32, 1911 1002 =Alley in square 3019. 1912 1008 Alley in square 2885, 1912 1020 Alleys in square 2829. 1912 1019 Alley in square 2858. 1912 1021 Alleys in square 2591, 1912 1027 Alley in square 2597. 1912 1022 Alley in square 757. 1912 1029 Alley in square 2830, 1912 1026 Alley in square 910. 1912 1024 Minor street in square 2888. 1912 1039 Minor street, square 16. 1912 1031 Alley in square 2551, 1912 1041 Minor street, block 3532. 1912 1042 Alley in square 377, 1912 1087 Minor street, through square 2895. 1912 1038 Alley in square 3049. 1912 1048 Alley in square 2892 (block 8, Mt. Pleasant). 1912 1051 Alley in square 957. 1912 1057 Alleys in square 1045, 1912 1088 Alley in square 3233. 1912 3 1085 Alley in square 2839 (THolmead Manor). 1912 ; 1056 = Alley in square 2537. 1912 1971 Minor street, square 5805, 1912 2 1087 Alley in square 1007. 1912 Respectfully submitted, CONRAD H. SYME, Corporation Counsel. JAMES FRANCIS SMITH, Assistant. (27997) (coh. Tap hae et ph Ay KR RES INS ina cowale’ Fe LEE MAR OE SPER he NS Rite Re a hae ‘ Seite Pant ; Kas : set re By ae c - % \~ ) Sa aay ee” eee ao IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OcroBER Ter, 1912. CUNO H. RUDOLPH ET AL.. PETITIONERS, : vs. LYNCHBURG INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL., RESPONDENTS. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS. The petitioners, as Commissioners of the District of Columbia, filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the Distr et of Columbia, for the condemnation of and under the provisions of sections 491a to 491n of the Code of Law for the District of Columbia, section 491e of which provides: “The court shall cause public notice of not less than twenty days to be given of the institution of such proceed ng, by advertisement in three daily newspapers published in the Distriet of Columbia’”’ etc. (italics ours). The court passed an order on November 28, 1911, requiring all persons having any interest in the proceed- ings to appear in court on or before January 9, 1912, and that such order be published once in the Washington Law Reporter, and six times in the Washington Evening Star, the Washington Herald, and the Washington 10607—1 : aa LOGE A ATE NEED LT: SCR BED 2 Post, commencing at least twenty days before the return day. Publication was made in the Washington Law Reporter on December 1, 1911, and in the three news- papers between November 29th and December 8, 1911. No appearance was made or entered for, or on beh:lf of, the Lynchburg Investment C orporation except a special appearance by motion to vacate, hereafter re- ferred to, and no appearance was entered by the Holmes Central Realty Corporation, before the verdict, although its counsel was present in court at the time the cause was argued to the jury (Ree., 34). The Lynehburg In- vestment Corporation ey no notice of the pendeney of the proceeding, either actual or constructive, un'ess notice is to be implied from the faet of publication (Ree., p. 29). pitied the jury had returned ‘ts verdiet, objections and exceptions were filed by both of the respondents, the Lynchburg Investment Corporation appearing specially for the purpose of moving the court to vacate the ver- dict on the grounds, among others following: That the publication was defective in that public notice of not less than twenty days was not given by advertisement in three daily newspapers and the court therefore did not acquire jurisdiction to assess benefits against it, or the land owned by it; that though it had, on September 10, 1899, dedicated for the extension and widening of Colo- rado Avenue more than 50,000 square feet of ground. the fact of its dedication was not brought to the attention of the jury by the petitioners, who wel knew the facts. and the Lynchburg Investment Corporation, by reason of its lack of notice of the proceedings, had no opportu- nity to do so, and in consequence, the jury did not take into consideration the facet of such dedication. or the value of the land so dedicated, and were not instructed by the court so t [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386002_0493%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.