The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1893-05-25
Decision in the
Court Street Cases

case" but recognizing the far-reaching
importance of the decision and the
general interest of it, the findings of
the court are today given in full, as
follows
This is a suit brought by a large
number of plaintiffs to restrain defend
ants from selling certain property of
plaintiffs for delinquent assessments
for the improvement of Court street
in the city Of Astoria, and to cancel the
entries made in relation to said assess
ments in the docket of city lens;
The plaintiffs claim that the pro-
ceedings in relation to said assessments
are void for substantially the follow
ing reasons:
1st. That the council unlawfully
attempted to alter the grade of said
Court street, and that said improve
ment was made to the grade so at
tempted to be established. and that
the proceedings were therefore void.
End. That no proper notice was
given of the intention to- alter or
change the grade of said street, or to
make the said Improvement, r Of the
assessment; and that no proof of the
publication Of said notices was ever
made of record.
3rd. That at the time of the passage
and approval of said ordinances there
was no mayor, and, that consequently,
the president of the council had no
authority to approve the ordinances.
4th. That said Court street had been
previously improved at the expense Of
the owners of the abutting property,
and that consequently these assess
ments were improperly made.
9Th. That the assessment was not
properly entered in the docket of city
liens.
9Th. That no levy was made upon the
lots of plaintiffs, and that no suffi-
cient notice of sale was given.
7th. That the date of sale was fixed
subsequent to the return day of the
warrants.
Sth. Plaintiff Clatsop Mill Company
claim that lot /, block 20 Is not as
sessed to its true owner.
propose to consider the objections
urged in the order that have stated
them. To tie first objection, that
ordinance No. 1409, which fixed the
grade at which the work was done on
Court street, was an unlawful attempt
to change the grade of the street, 1t
may be fairly answered that said ordi-
nance does not attempt to change or
alter the grade, but to fix it. 1t was
claimed th9t cT'iTanc No 7l intro
duced by plaintiffs, and passed In the
year 1872, fixed the grad g, rc'l
street, but il does not pretend to estab-
lish such grade, except at crossings,
and only incidental to the grade of
other streets. do not think that fix
ing the grade at crossings only is fix
ing the grade of the street, because
there is no law or practice that re-
puire a street to be improved on the
same grade between crossings that 1t
is at crossings. To hold that the grade
of the street may be established by es-
tablishing the grade at crossings,
would violate the spirit and intent of
the charter, which provides that
notice shall be given Of an intent to
establish the grade of a street, and
that property owners on said street
shall have the right of remonstrance.
This would be rendered entirely nuga-
tory If the council could, by giving no
tice of intention to establish the grade
Of other streets crossing Court street,
and acting on such notice, thereby do
Indirectly and without notice, that
which they could not do directly with
out notice. Aside from this considera-
lion, am of the opinion that the estab-
ishment of the grade of a street is
IN entirely separate proceeding from
hat of improving a street, and that
he question Of grade is a collateral
that cannot be inquired in
o I'm this suit 1t Is matter within the
Jurisdiction Of the common council,
md, being so within their Jurisdiction,
heir decision is final except where 1t
S attacked directly, either by review
r other appropriate remedy, taken in
hat particular proceeding, and not coll
aterally. It is judgment and juris-
Iiction once attained, 1t must be given
he same force and effect as the judg-
nent of a court Of competent juris-
Iiction.
Gay V. Bradstreet. n Amer. Fec,
70.
Elliott on roads and streets. 22S
81.
In re Buhler 80 Barbour 70.
Balfe v. Iammen 10 N. E. Rep. 92
McEnnery V. Sullivan, 25 N. e., $40.
Morrill, V. Morrill,, 20 Oregon. 90.
City charter. page 20. Section 5.
Lewis on eminent domain, section
81.
Plaintiffs next contention Is that no
uficient notice was given Of the In
ention Of the council to improve said
treet. am Of the opinion that the