The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-01-12
THE TAX Is INVALID.
South Twelfth Street Assess
ment Is Declared Void.
WORK ORDERED NOT COMPLETED
Ss6ss Lssslsy Orders . Perpetual In
3unetfon-rhs Right Of the City
Not Vet Exhaussed.


Judge Langley yesterday rendered de.
cisson In the South Twelfth street grade
tax case which 10 Of considerable import
ance, although the nature of the case was
such that IL does not settle the new poin,
OF Law 1t was hoped to settle. South
Twelfth street was graded under the old
cnarser and the assessment also levied IN
der II. A writ Of certiorarI was applied
Tor BY property owner. Wilson. and upon
appeal TO the supreme court the assess.
ment was declared invalid. leaving the city
the right TO reassess under an amend
rnent TO the charter and state law. A
reassessmens was accordingly made.
whereupon Haisch and Others again con-
tested II. partly on the ground that the
work was never completed and partly on
the ground that the city could not avail
itself of q law which did not exist at the
time the assessment was attempted. The
court does not 20 into that question in its
decision. but decides in favor Of the prop
erty owners. on the ground that the work
was not done according to contract and
ordinance and declares the assessment in
valid.
The text of the decision Is a. follows:
This action Is brought to annul and de-
clare void certain special assessments
against PLAINTIFF properties abutting on
South Twelfth street. between Yesier ave-
nue. and Stacy street, in Seattle, remove
the cloud on the title TO said properties by
reason OF such assessments, and for in
iunctive relief. Plaintiffs contend that
the proposed improvement of South
Twelfth street n began under the old
charter OF Seattle and continued under the
new, for which the assessment was at
tempted. was never completed, and for
that reason and many other supposed IT.
Irregularities. unauthorized and illegal pro-
ceedings of the city and its officers, no
lawful assessment WAS ever made or now
exists against their properties.
The city. defending, admits the nullity
OF the tirst attempted assessment, but that
under the old charter the improvement
having been legally ordered, it may pro-
eeed under the present charter to reassess
the same property for the same improve
ment, and claims that for the purpose of
such reassessment all its acts were lawful !;
that the improvement was completed &C.
cording to the contract and that the plain
tiffs, having had due notice of all proceed
ings and opportunity TO be heard, are now
estopped 10 deny their validity or that the
improvement was not made as contracted.
AT the hearing many interesting prop
ositions OF law were raised and ably dis
cussed by learned counsel touching the
power Of the city to proceed at all under
the new charter to complete an enterprise
begun under the old, involving radically
different theories and methods the former
being by taxation on valuation and the
latter an arbitrary assessment on frontage,
and whether the theory of assessing front
age is not unequal and unjust and made
rrtfh I'D 10 h~nn
But with my present view Of the case il
will not be necessary to pass upon these
questions In this action Is they will more
properly arise in future proceedings,
should the city undertake further assess
ment OF these properties.
''Conceding, therefore, for the purposes
ofthis hearing. that originally the improve
by the supreme court in the suit of Viii
son VS.. Seattle. I'd WASH. page 543 and
that all rights OF the city incident to
such orders still exist, and may DO en-
forced under the present charter by
proper proceedings. still we are met at the
threshold Of our inquiry with the question
whether the improvement undertaken by
the city and for which these plaintiffs are
asked to pay, was in fact ever completed
! do not understand from the plesdings or
proofs that the plaintiffs ask relief SO much
because OF the supposed technical delin-
quencies Of the city as upon the more sub
stantisi grounds that their properties are
burdened with apparent liens and their
titles clouded with claims for money they
do not owe and for which they never re-
ceived the contract considerations.
The original ordinance providing for the
improvement of South Twelfth street was
passed by the city council June 20, 1890.
and directed the street to be graded from
Yesler avenue to Stacy street. and side
walks ordered TO lie constructed coextsn-
sive with said grade
The contract with Smart in evidence
requires hum to do the work prescribed by
the ordinance.
The ordinance directing q reassess-
ment, passed the 10Th day of July. ls92, Is
based upon the assumption tina. the work
was then completed and accepted as such
by the city. and the assessment was neces.
sary TO pay for completed work.
The complaints and answers make an
issue of fact as to the completion of the
work according 20 the requirements of the
ordinance and terms of the contract, but
the answer further urges that com plain
ants are estopped to deny such completion
IF plaintiffs are not estopped rs claimed
and the issue of fact NAV be tried in this
suit then upon finding against the defend
ant on that issue. all proceedings for re-
assessment would fail. The Improvement
was the sole consideration for any express
promise or implied liability TO pay the
contract price aud the city could not pro-
coed until the contract was substantially
performed.
II think the issue of fact may be tried in
this action and my reasons in part for so
holding will apply with equal force against
the contention that plaintiffs are estopped
TO deny performances.
1.-THE plaintiffs show by more than half
a dozen witnesses who knew the line OF
South Twelfth street before and since the
alleged Improvements, that tor a distance
OF several blocks only one eide of the street
was graded at all; that no sidewalk was
constructed on the ungraded parts; that
other portions of the line for great
distances were left In a manifestly un-
finished condition, and that at no time
since the contractor quit the work has any
considerable portion Of the street been
passaela for teams or footmen.
Against this array OF proof stands this
single statement of the city engineer TO
the board of public works tina, he had
given the contractor his final estimate
showing the balance due him under his
contract and the acceptance by the board
Of such statement. 10 the support of which
the city calls no witness or offers further
proofs
obviously the city relies upon the &C
81 ~. wnrk he ha stsv can