Los Angeles herald., 1892-08-05
THE LANDS CANNOT Be SOLD,
The First Street Improvement
Case Decided.
The Supreme Court Finds Against
the Street Superintendent.
The Suit OF Dehart VS.. Morford Finally
settled-A Fatal Defect in the
Ordinance Widening
First Street.

local municipa law, yesterday:
Dehart ct al, respondents, Va. Nor
ford ct al, appellants. The city of Los
Angeles adopted an ordinance, July s,
1889. for the widening of First street,
from the west side of Los Angeles street
to the west line of Alameda street, for
which certain lands were to be taken,
and the costs, damages and expenses
thereof to be paid by an assessment
.upon other lands to be benefited thereby.
Further proceedings were had under
the ordinance, eliminating in an assess
ment upon certain lands bordering on
the Improvement, which was placed in
the hands of the defendant Morford, as
street superintendent of the city, for
collection: and the defendant having
Advertised for sale, and being about to
sell for the purpose of satisfying said as
sessment. certain lots of land belonging
to plaintiffs, this action was brought to
restrain him from making the sale. The
F, defendant answered the complaint, set
ting out the proceedings leading up to
the assessment, and his proceedings
thereunder and upon motion of the
plaintiffs, the court rendered judgmentin
their favor upon the proceedings, per-
petually enjoining the defendant from
making said sale, From this judgment
the defendants have appealed.
Section second of the act Of March 6,
1889, under which proceedings for
widening the street were had, declares: {:
''Section 2. Before ordering any
work to be done, or improvent made,
which is authorized by section l of
onk 1a nft ont oh n
resolution declaring it's intention to do
so. describing the work or improve
ment, and the land deemed necessary
to be taken therefor, and specifying the
exterior boundaries of the district OF
lands to be affected or benefited by said
work or Improvement, and to be as
sessed to pay the damages, costs and
expenses thereof"
The ordinance adopted by the city of
Los Angeles for widening said street,
of above section of the statute, for
a resolution 'sspecifying the exterior
boundaries" of the district to be as
only boundaries of the district which
street, between Los Angeles and Ala
ing the "exterior boundaries" of the
boundaries of tract within the district
which is exempt from assessment.
There Is nothing in the description of
the district from which its extent in
either direction from First street can be
ascertained, or by which any one can
determine the quantity of land which
ia IN a
A very obvious reaeon for this require
ment OF the statute is that each owner
of property within the district may be
informed of the extent of territory
which is to bear the burden of the inn
provement, and thus by calculating the
relative burden upon himself. deter
mine whether the burden to be borne
by himself will be so disproportionate
to the benefit of the improvement that
he can make suitable Representations to
the city council when it comes to act on
the ordinance, in pursuance Of itH reHo-
luton of intention. While each owner
of property may know the depth and
area of his own lot within the district,
he is not presumed to know that Of the
other lot owners, and, consequently,
cannot know the relative proportion of
the expense which he will be called on
to bear, and cannot intelligently make
any objections before the council. Ir.
respective of such reason, however, it is
sufficient reason that the legislature
has prescribed this as requirement to
be observed by the city council and one
of the steps to be taken by it before it
can have any jurisdiction in the matter,
and it is fundamental principle in
proceedings of this character that every
requirement of the statute which has a
semblance OF benefit to the owner
must be observed, in orderIto give to the
municipality jurisdiction in the prem
ises. After Jurisdiction has once been
acquired, subsequent proceedings can be
attachedfor only such Irregularities as
affect substantial rights; but for the pur-
pose OF acquiring jurisdiction, every re-
-quirement must be regarded as of equal
necessity.
The plaintiffs did not waive their
right to object to this want of jurisdic-
ton, by the fact that they appeared be-
fore the city council and filed objections
to the improvement, and afterwards
protested against the report of the COM
missiopers. If council failed to acquire
jurisdiction by the subject matter of inn
provement, it could not acquire it by
consent OF PLAINTIFF, much less by the
fact that they objected to the improve
ment.
The Judgment Of the lower court is ai,
-frmed.
The decision of the lower court, in
the case of O'Shea, respondent, vs. Will
kinson, appellant, on account of action
against an incompetent person, is re-
versed by the superior court, and the
lower court directed to dismiss the ac-
ton.