Judges: WHITFIELD, P. J. —
Attorneys: Shackleford, Shackleford Ivy, for Appellant;
Thomas M. Shackleford and H. C. Hillman, for Appellees.
Filed: Sep. 19, 1929
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This suit was brought to test the constitutional validity of Chapter 12867, Acts of 1927, the title and a portion of its provisions being: "AN ACT to Provide for the Grading, Paving, Curbing, Draining, Re-grading, Re-paving, Re-curbing, Re-draining, and the Widening of the Pavement of, Public Roads, or Continuous Portions Thereof, Without, or Partly Within and Partly Without, the Corporate Limits of any Municipality, in Hillsborough County, Florida; for the Assessment of the Entire Cost Thereof
Summary: This suit was brought to test the constitutional validity of Chapter 12867, Acts of 1927, the title and a portion of its provisions being: "AN ACT to Provide for the Grading, Paving, Curbing, Draining, Re-grading, Re-paving, Re-curbing, Re-draining, and the Widening of the Pavement of, Public Roads, or Continuous Portions Thereof, Without, or Partly Within and Partly Without, the Corporate Limits of any Municipality, in Hillsborough County, Florida; for the Assessment of the Entire Cost Thereof A..
More
In addition to the reasons advanced by Mr. Justice WHITFIELD, I think the Act should also be held invalid because the authorization of assessments for the cost of constructing a highway against
abutting rural lands according to their mere length of frontage, without regard to the area or character of the land, or the quantum of benefits conferred, is incapable of anything like a fair and equal application as applied to lands in the country. Even as applied to city property, the front foot rule frequently works injustice in practical application, but by reason of conditions in rural sections and the endless varieties in shape, area, character, use and value which we must judicially know to there generally exist, we must know that the front foot rule cannot generally be applied with even approximate equality or justice, and without denying the equal protection of the laws.
WHITFIELD, ELLIS AND STRUM, J. J., concur.
