Fairhaven herald. [volume] (Fairhaven, Wash.) 1890-????, 1892-05-18

several parcels of property, properl,
ehargeable with the tax, are made {,
bear unequally the burden thereof
rms proposition Is almost automatic
we would cite, however, upon thl
point, Cooley, Const. Linn 18th Ed
p. 90, and eases there cited. In 0u
opinion, the assessment in question
violates this weii-settied rule. So fa,
as appears from this record, there wa,
no reason why the lands of respondent
Whlch were situated at gfeater dis
lance from the street improved than
the limit OF the narrowest strip charged
WIN such improv ment upon other
portions OF the street, should have been
made to bear any part of the cost Of the
improvement. And when one of two
adjoining strips Of frontage n assessed
only to the depth Of 100 feet, and tbo
other To depth of n thousand feet, il
Is evident 10 all that such assessment
Is not equal and uniform. The use of
the word parcels" in the charter of
said city must have u more restricted
definition than that given to il by said
common council. If said clause of the
charter is To stand the test of constitu.
tionai scrutiny, il must be held to re-
late only to Improvements IN such
parts of the city as have been plated
INTO lots and parcels of substantially
equal depth upon the street To be I'M
| proved, or that under IL the common
council can establish an assessneut
district extending back uniform dis
tance from the street throughout the
entire length of the improvement, and
assess only upon the lots and parcels
a l..t L.. 4
1t will stand the test when thus con.
stfaed, IL h not necessary for us now to
decide, as this assessment does not
meet any Interpretation Of said clause
consistent with its constitutionality.
See Washington Avenue, 90 Pa ST.
36li CITY V. ituie, 83 Pa. st. 10; Seeiy
v. Pittsburgh, 81 Pa. st. 1866.
The tax upon the lands of the re-
spondent was clearly illegal. The ap-
pellants, however, contend that, even
although such Is the fact, plaintiff was
not In situation TO question it, for the
reason % that he was one of the petit
TONERS Tor the Improvement, aud must
be held TO have moved the common
council to do what they did, and can
not, Therefore, now object; (2) that
under the provisions Of the charter of
said city Of Tacoma the respondent was
given the opportunity of appearing and
dhtectihg to any of the proceedings or
to the assessment, and, not having
done so, he is bound by the action OIL
the council IN approving of the levy. |
The provisions OF the charter In that |
regard are broad enough 20 warrant
this contention on the part of the ap- |
pellants, but such construction would |
ils IN the other eases cited, destroy the /
constitutionality of such provision. ri
It II to toe held constitutional, the CON |
clusiveness Of the proceedings had be-
fore said city council must be held to |
apply only 10 the question Of procedure /
and valuation under method which, |
II properly applied, would work sub |
stantial justice. 1t could not be ex-
tended 80 IA to estOp one from asserting |
rights as against such assessment when /
The common council had never had any |
of the proceeding, or had
so lar departed from proper methods as
10 Dust it of such Jurisdiction. In the
case at bar we think that the proceed
ngs clearly show such "a departure
rom constitutional methods as to rem
Ter them void, and that for that reason
respondent, as IA petitioner for the work,
: not responsible therefor, or bound
hereby, and that for like reason the
proceedings before the common council /
n equallzlng and approving the assess-
nent are binding upon no one,
The other objection of appellants as
. the proceedings Of the court below Is
hat court Of equity will not set aside
/ tax, nor restrain its collection, unless
he party seeking the interposition Of
he court pays, or offers 10 pay, such
Of the tax assessed against
lim AZ in equity he should. And they
,laim that In this case the answer
howed that the lands Of respondent
we're benefited by the Improvement,
md that in equity he should pay for
uch benefit, and, that, as lac has not
lone so, he could not maintain this
ction. We doubt whether the rule
Ibove stated applies ~ Il tax or assess- ,
nent absolutely void, as we hold this
ne TO be, but, even II IL does, we think
he reason set out in respondents com
'lalnt why he has not paid or offered
0 pay his proper proportion of the cost
! the improvement Is a sufficient one. ,
Tie whole assessment was made upon
basis 80 false and unwarranted that ]
furnished no data from which the !
nst proportion Of any Of the property I
,roDerly chargeable with the cost Of
he improvement could be determined. I
hat equity will interfere 10 get aside J
uch a tax, and TO prevent the cloud '
~ Of the title Of the owner, we think {
lear. See Mayall V. City Of st. Paul, I
0 MINI. 29f, Is N. w. Rep. 10; Has 8
an v, Rochester, 65 n. Y. 521; ELL !
,ood V. City Of Rochester, 122 N. Y. s
~, % N. u. Rep. 23s.
Judgment Of the court below must a
G affirmed.
ANDERs, G. j., and STILES, ScorT, /
nd DUNBAR, JJ., concur. {