N. W. 52). It is clear from the various provisions of our general law relative to special assessments in villages that the legislative intent was an application of the foot-front rule, requiring each owner to pay a share of the cost proportionate to the number of feet his property fronted on the line of the improvement, and in any case where the rule worked an injustice it was to be modified, as to that particular case, not by reducing the amount per foot, but by reducing the number of feet. The act provides that the expense of such work may be defrayed by special assessment upon lots abutting upon the improvement "in proportion to the number of feet front upon the street." If, owing to the size or shape of any lot, this works an injustice, the authorities "may assess such lot for such number of feet frontage as in their opinion would be just." By section 2837, 1 Comp. Laws (3 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 6058), this method of assessing exceptional lots at the same rate per foot for a different number of feet frontage is again prescribed in these cases where equitable considerations demand a reduction. The whole tenor of the law upon that subject is to maintain an equal foot-front assessment on all property, equitable and proportionate to benefits, with a discretion given the assessing authorities to assess for a less number of feet, but at the regular price per foot in cases where justice and equity demand it. In this case such discretionary power was not exercised. The inequality of assessment does not arise because of the peculiar shape or size of any lot. All lots were assessed according to their actual frontage upon the street, but at a varying amount per foot. This was not done in the exercise of discretionary power given the assessing officers to vary the rule in special cases to avoid inequalities and inequities, but was in compliance with mandatory provisions of said Local Act No. 707, which prohibits a special assessment against any lots exceeding 25 per cent. of their assessed valuation, irrespective of relative equities or proportionate benefits from the proposed improvements.

178 MICH.-14.

This is subversive of the basic principles of special assessments according to benefits, unless construed to mean that in no case can such an amount be assessed against a district for improvements as would result in the proportion against any particular lot exceeding 25 per cent. of its assessed valuation. It cannot be disputed that in levying the amount proposed in this case a compliance with the requirements of said Local Act No. 707 results in an unequal assessment, which imposes a heavier proportionate burden on improved than on unimproved property, though equally benefited. The testimony shows that the village of Highland Park is making a rapid growth, that several houses had been built after the last general assessment roll was made and before it was proposed to levy this special assessment, and that others were in contemplation. The method of assessment followed in this case puts a premium on those who contemplate, and are preparing to make, improvements on their property, waiting until after the general assessment roll is completed. Should they immediately thereafter make such private improvements, even greater than those on adjoining property, they thereupon receive and enjoy equal or greater benefits from the public improvement, but pay comparatively small and disproportionate amounts therefor.

Such facts standing alone do not establish the invalidity of the assessment, but they graphically illustrate that benefits, or enhanced values, from public improvements, are not to be determined by the buildings upon, or use made of, the property at the time the assessments are being levied. The benefits, rather than the value of the property, govern in apportioning cost of local improvements, and the use made of the property by the owner, or contemplated by him, or whether he may ever put it to any use, is not the test. Grand Rapids School Furniture Co. v. City of Grand Rapids, 92 Mich. 564 (52 N. W. 1028); Powers v. City of Grand Rapids, 98 Mich. 393 (57 N. W. 250); Lawrence v. City of Grand Rapids, 166 Mich. 134 (131 N. W. 581). The discretion vested by

the general law in the assessing body to vary the foot frontage assessment can only be exercised to bring about equitable results in cases of peculiar shape and size of lots. The provisions of section 4 of Act No. 707, not only restrict their discretion in that particular, but compel an assessment which tends to inequitable results. The principles applicable to foot-front assessments have been stated in numerous authorities in varying language:

"Like general taxes, special assessments are enforced proportional contributions." "Laws may justly be made providing that under suitable and equitable regulations those common interests shall be so managed that those who enjoy the benefits shall equally bear the burden." "The levying of a special assessment is an exercise of the taxing power and requires that the basis of apportionment upon the property subject to assessment shall be uniform." "The apportionment should be such that the amount paid by one person or piece of property shall bear some reasonable relation to the amount paid by another in the assessment district or community where the burden is to be borne." Dillon on Municipal Corporations, §§ 14301433; Wright v. City of Boston, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 233; Chaffee's Appeal, 56 Mich. 244 (22 N. W. 871).

We are of opinion that the assessing officers painstakingly formulated the questioned assessment in conformity with the statutes, so far as their somewhat conflicting provisions permitted, and that the manifest inequalities are imputable to the requirements of said Local Act No. 707. This renders it incumbent on the court to consider the objections launched against the constitutionality of said act.

As already intimated, results which follow compliance with certain requirements of the act so tincture the law with the essence of unconstitutionality as to render it invalid. The specific and sweeping objections urged against its validity are stated in the bill of complaint as follows:

"(1) Act No. 707 of the Public Acts of 1907, entitled 'An act to regulate the making of special assessments

within the limits of the villages of Highland Park, St. Clair Heights, Hamtramck and River Rouge, in the county of Wayne,' is in contravention of the Constitution of the State of Michigan (article 4, § 20, of 1850; article 5, § 21, of 1909) in the following particulars:

(2) Said act by its title does not purport to amend or repeal any provisions of the general village laws otherwise applicable to the villages enumerated, while section of said act does amend or repeal section 5 of chapter 9 of the general village act (section 2856, 1 Comp. Laws).

'(3) Said act by its title purports to be an act for the regulation of the making of assessments provided by the laws of the State, while section 7 of the act undertakes to raise the limit of taxation of the villages named, and to authorize and empower the villages named to double the amount of taxes that may be raised in any one year, and, in the event of a special assessment, to pay for the property taken for public use. Section 7 removes all limit to an amount that may be raised by special assessment in any one year.

66

(4) Because there is nothing in the title to indicate that any new or increased power of taxation was to be granted.

"(5) Because there is nothing in the title to indicate that increased power to borrow money and issue bonds was to be granted by the act.

"(6) Because said act embraces seven separate objects, viz., to amend chapter 8 of the general village law relative to assessment. To repeal section 5 of chapter 9 of the general village law relative to 'finance and taxation,' and to substitute section 7 therefor. To provide new power in the matter of borrowing money and issuing bonds. To regulate the making of special assessments in the village of Highland Park. To regulate the making of special assessments in the village of St. Clair Heights. To regulate the making of special assessments in the village of Hamtramck. To regulate the making of special assessments in the village of River Rouge.'

These reasons are copied almost verbatim from the answer and cross-bill filed by defendant in Central Bitulithic Paving Co. v. Village of Highland Park, reported in 164 Mich. 223 (129 N. W. 46, Ann. Cas. 1912B 719). In that case the village was defending against a contract for paving, and among other defenses strenuously

contended against the constitutionality of said Act No. 707. The case was decided in favor of defendant on other grounds which fully disposed of the controversy, and, under the rule which obtains in such cases, the constitutional question was not considered or passed upon. We do not conceive that the village is estopped, either in law or in equity, from attempting to sustain the statute in question in this suit by reason of its invalidity having been urged in behalf of the same defendant in some previous litigation, but the circumstance is historically interesting, and the brief filed by counsel for the village in that case on the constitutional question is useful, instructive, and convincing. It was the opinion of the learned circuit judge that said act was invalid for the reason that it embraced more than one object, and objects were embodied in the act not expressed in the title.

It is to be observed that this act relates to, and proposes to amend, the charters of four separate villages, having their existence under four distinct charters. The village of Highland Park was incorporated under Act No. 371, Local Acts of 1889, the village of River Rouge was incorporated by the board of supervisors of Wayne county in 1899, the village of Hamtramck by the same authority in 1901, and the village of St. Clair Heights by the same authority in 1903. It is contended that all these villages, being adjacent to the city of Detroit, had been connected with its water and sewer systems by some arrangement previously made with the city, and are in a different position from other villages, constituting a class by themselves. While these villages adjoin the city of Detroit, they do not all adjoin each other, and we are unable to see how their relations to the city of Detroit have any bearing upon their relations with each other. Each necessarily made its distinct and individual arrangements with the city in order to get the sewer and water connections, and, as far as streets and street improvements are concerned, we do not discover anything which suggests a distinction between them and other villages throughout the