The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-05-15
STREET GRADE SCRIP
Only Improvement Funds Liza
bic for Its Redemption.
DECISION or SUPREME COURT.
NsssIsg 20 City OAeisls % the Issuance
es Scrip snA she Payment Of
CsaecrueA Insersss.

tsreet improvement funds, or '.grade
scrip" ~ II - usually called. The prin-
cipaI point - that the city IL not liable for
the cost OF improvements assessed to local
improvement districts, but there are other
issues which ought 70 receive the careful
consideration Of the city counc;i. Of the
board Of public works and Of the city
treasurer. Some Of tho conclusions arrived
1t will probably astonish city officials who
unsnquiringly followed custom. Some
dangers which the city has barely escaped
for there II no reason 10 doubt that the
decision may now be accepted q, the fixed
law Of this state-but which any new and
tncautious officials might fail TO see. dem
onstratc the necessity OF continuing the
Law department upon thu highest plane.
The suit calling for the decision was
brought by N. q. Souic against the city Of
Seattle for the recovery Of {fl.6l0 on war
rants issued for the grading Of South
Twelfth street to +. I. Smart, the con-
tractor, and by him assigned 10 Soule.
The superior court gave judgment against
thu city, and then began one or the most
skiliiul legal contests ever made in the
courts Of this state. conducted on behalf OF
ths city by George Donwor,h ard j. b.
Howe and for Souie by Blaine & I,eSries.
Briefly. the contention Of the city was
that the cost Of the grading was chargeable
Only to the street improvement fund. that
" was tho responsibility Of the contractor
20 satisfy himself OF the regularity OF the
proceedings and consequent validity OF the
warrants. and that the city could not be
made liable On the other hand. IL was
urged that the contractor had fulfilled his
contract with the city and was entitled to
his pay: that the city received benefit by
the construction of a public street
and had the power TO reim-
Nurse Itself by ievying an assessment
il was no fault Of the contractor that the
city Jailed 10 make the levy regularly.
The question was put. "WiIi the supreme
court Of new state adopt appellants
reasoning, which i'm the form of n maxim
would read thus: lie who is in fault
may retain the fruits Of the labor OF him
who IL not at fault without compensa-
ton p"
While the suit was still pending the
South Twelfth street assessment was de-
clarcd void and a reasscssment was made
under the provisions OF the amended char
ter. That proceeding enters into the
ground Of the decision.
The opinion which is signed by Judge
Stiles and concurred in by Judges Scott
and Andcrs Is as follows:
After the decision OF this court in Wilson VS.
Seattle C. W6sh, si3l. respondent assignee o.
the contractor for tho work on south Twelfth
street, brought suit against the city. setting
cut the facts showing the issuance to his as
signof OF large number OF city warrants pas-
tial payment Of his claim for the work done In
grading. sldewsiking and 1uttering the street,
hat thnf tail
provide any fund for their payment by means
OF special assessment. The complaint was ad
dressed 10 tho equity side OF the court. ana
psaycd judgment for the face of the warrants
ana interest and for further relief In equity.
The tu igment WAS for tho full amount claimed
and for . warrant TO b. issued BY said city oil
Seattle ~ provided BY law
The city appealing makes numerous obiec-
ticns. the most important OF which are summed
up In tho proposition that IL eonid In no such
event ~ has hafe transpircd. under the Law. be
held liable Tor the cost Of work done in grading
South Twelfth street
II maintained that section OF the charter of
1SSe referred only to repairs OF streets. while
section provided for now grading; that sec
don scxpressed tho only power the city had 10
grade. and ~ the means therein mentioned tos
paying thu cost were local assessments, there
was 10 other source 10 which a contractor could
ioek: TIA: the city was the mere agent of the
property holders aud that only 10 the extent Of
furnishing officers 10 levy aud collect assess
naeais. aud that no liability could In any event
attach 10 the city as large or. al ieast rot usssf
there was sositise refusal To maze ass assess
naent. or such delay of other circumstance
wautd lose 10 the contractor his compensation
Tor his work aad materials.
There nre eases which 90 20 thu extent OF
holding that where there MAS either lack OF
statutory IpoNes or failure TO acquire surlsdc-
ton OF the suhises matter u municipal corpora.
ten must he entirely sssoiyed from paying.
such eiaifs Itiaaf vs. Utica, Is y. Y. Az.
extft vs.. wllIiafasbasgh. ~ lsarbA. At. Lssyea-
worth vs. Rankin. Kan. a3T. tseocrteh vs. BE-
tgoii. l. Miea., 80. Johnson vs.. Indianapolis, 10
LAD, ~ Hoai Va. Newark. - n. j., EQ. S-dl
Bsst IL Is heyond all question. /; seofas to Us
that tie city IN this Instance MAS not limited 20
sneelai assessments Is the means al improving
It's streets Ia any way IL saw IT, section by its
terms covered every imaginable Improvement
and foe seeh purposes IL could borrow money
auier tte provisions OF section - Tho author
tty Of section was merely peFntssisc, and was
probably expressed solely for the reason thai,
uaiess oppressed it could have 40 existence
The charter 81 the city at Ne mphls contained
toe substance OF all there in these two sec
ticns-9 and sand in reference 70 IL tie United
States supreme saars said: ..ueu-
sssl power and authority over the
sutlec. Is by law given To tho
city sad the power also vested Ia she city ,a re-
Nuife that tue cost nasY he aSsessed upon the
adjoining ewues DOES net Impair the pewer OF
the city Itself to do the work The city NAV re-
Nuire the owner se pay, has il il act compelled
&C. do 80 tMerapa.s vs., nsowa. ~ Wall ssa-Sla
To the sane rssecs is Hitehcee. ". Galveston
ST.. \. SAL
la l. A.. Company East Portland, Is Or.
ezen. Il, this statute construed woald seeta 70
read almost IN tae farm In which appellant
eonseads thai this enc sheasd be construed: ha.
sae agreed price iag the material used ia sns
Improvement 81 street. WA held - Re rceox-
Srahae whers WARRANTS had teea issued payable
oat al = iund sn te collected sesaa ssss.saaaats
hug tae sand had nas axea provided. The caa.
curing epsnloa ef Lord. j., 10 devoted &,
. ssesr showing ~ gne distinction hetwesa tie
gensTas iawes te isaprosc stssets sna the spccsSi
ro~es tn do 50 ~ local assessments Tho aSse
dissenting eplAiea 81 fhsyeg. J., 10 hsssi en-
TREY gs~aa the tact tass in bus view tae oagy
power expressed sss IL improve - loeaI assss.
meats
Bat gt would act he prossshle IL pursue tals
matter further since in The case a~skofs Us there
sso csaeE elements ia II sAsesa are sseslve
serslan 4 OF shs charter contained sitsls ia al
itlssa Ia the e<sss sxsase 81 power 10 lew srsefal
sssessaeasss tat ssetica 81 savs sAs city
sssthesssy by ordinance 81 pgasegate the rsataai
II assessing sai eSA,lcssgrs snea taxes an4 tie
ety. availing itself II lis sltsYnstass sasAofits
n she rresntses, by essitssase ~. sseYles. a
isk3. elected 10 sssss all AT certain c ssss. 81
stssxs improvements by tie ssselas4 81 sg-etzi
assessments. ana regulating the pgteesiSass fss
iyyysus ana cssseesaax she ssasa ssessea q.
that osaia ssee tssd - sossews;
Whenever Ind comaag esaa@ssi 81 The essy ~
seatts sssail safss say rass IT sns ss.ss', h'sa
vsy or alley khsresa - h. eaFssss. pssssi.
s,ste.a raAeaskmia&ss ar Seatefet. ex aos sles-
vslk H. ss constructed ia say saSh street BIG a.
Gay OF saisy, TIE ~aeAs esss - .ssa ~ issss