Hoke

Except in one particular this case is not distinguishable from Dean v. Davis, No. 4706 [ 51 Cal. 406 ], decided at the present term, and the judgment must be affirmed on the authority of that case, unless there be something in the particular referred to which shall lead to a different result.

In addition to the causes of action relied upon in Dean v. Davis [ 51 Cal. 406 ], the complaint in the present action alleges that if the reclamation works shall be reconstructed, they will have the effect, not to benefit the plaintiff’s land, but, on the contrary, greatly and permanently to depreciate its value. It is claimed, therefore, that this will constitute a “taking” of the land for public use without a just compensation, in violation of the constitution. But in schemes for local improvements of this character, where the expenses *28 are to be defrayed by means of a tax levied upon the property within the district supposed to be benefited, the payment of the tax cannot be resisted, on the ground that a particular parcel of land within the district will not be benefited, but, on the contrary, may or will be injuriously affected by the proposed improvement. In People v. Whyler, 41 Cal.…