Crane v. Hahlo,
258 U.S. 142 (1922)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Crane v. Hahlo, 258 U.S. 142 (1922)

Crane v. Hahlo

No. 107

Argued January 20, 23, 1922

Decided February 27, 1922

258 U.S. 142


1. A purely statutory right of a landowner to recover damages resulting to his property from a change in the grade of a street upon which it abuts is not a right of contract within the meaning of the Contract Clause of the Constitution. P. 145.

2. In determining whether due process of law has been denied, the character of the proceeding involved and the practice at common law and in this country in like cases must be considered. P. 258 U. S. 147.

3. The determination of the amount of damage to abutting property caused by changing the grade of a city street may be properly left to a board of assessors, and the property owner is not deprived of due process if, pending the proceeding, his right to a general review by a court is limited by an amendatory law making the award final as to amount but leaving it reviewable for lack of jurisdiction, fraud, or the willful misconduct of the members of the board. P. 258 U. S. 147.

4. Equal protection of the laws is not denied the claimant in such a case by vesting the final power to assess the amount of the damages in a board composed of officials of the city against which the claim is made, appointed by its mayor. P. 258 U. S. 148.

228 N.Y. 309 affirmed.

Writ of error to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, entered on remittitur from the Court of Appeals of the state. The effect of the judgment was to dismiss for want of jurisdiction an application previously entertained by the supreme court of the state, and by the appellate division on appeal, where the plaintiff in error here sought a writ of certiorari to review an award made by the Board of Assessors of the City of New York and confirmed by the Board of Revision of Assessments, fixing the damages

Page 258 U. S. 143

suffered by the plaintiff's intestate as abutting property owner, due to a change of a street grade resulting from the construction of a viaduct by the city.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.