The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-11-18

iastous- Mutually 10 in such casa. en-
tsrsly wanting.
ne new assessment wss ueve, sn.s-s.s
~ eonfr1vance to enable mauieinag .r-
.norlsses to sva1e or override the inEtia,
laTisdictionsi checks provided By con.t,-
aIkfons statute or charter for .hs n~o..e-
slon OF municipalities or property owners.
ne aaw 10 quite liberal, the cours holds.
toward street contractors for .e~urinv
Their ecuitahie claims. But a.. cor.
tractors equity depend. ult,mas.lv uran
hs eoasractnai or quasI-coasrartua rela-
tons 10 the proprietor from wha.. NOR
eFty he seeks REIN hursemens Prtvfty
must hrst be established between con-
tractor and lot owner before any obliga-
.son VIII arise On the part Of the latter or
his property
The motion TO quash the writ vas de.
MED oy the court and Judgment a. above
siil be given.
Judge Green's. sitting as Judge pro tenn
pore, also handed down an opinion sd-
verse TO the city in the case OF William
Cline vs.. the City. involving the validity of
the reassessmsnt OF Fourteenth street.
Judge Greene states. n conclusion. from
the hearing. that there was no petition for
ths i'm provemsnt AZ the petition for grading
South Fourteenth street, from Washington
70 Plum. canno. be considered as a pe,i-
ton for grading iess distance, namely. to
Pine. The documentary evidence regard
Ing the passage OF the ordinance IL sun
Gent, the court holds, TO show that il
never passed the council By the votes of
All the members present. IL showed bv
name those who voted for il. and expressly
that none voted against il, and that still
another member was present and as act
ing mayor was occupying the chair. which
position does not deprive him of his right
TO vote or relieve him OF his responsibility
- a member entrusted with vote. nor
take from the persons whose lands were
affected by the Improvement their right
that 1t should not be prosecuted at the
cost OF their property without his vote
In reference TO the case of Doran vs.. the
City. contended TO be similar TO the one on
trial, Judge Greene says he Is not satisfied
that the facts are the same, and therefore
nnds according TO his own views
Although the procedure prescribed by
ordinances for letting of contracts was not
followed la the case, the court holds iha
this did not invaiidate the contract. The
grade did not need to be established be-
fore the contract. Ii Was sufficient tt st
the work sh ouid be completed under il.
and from the prepopderance OF evidence it
appears that the Improvements was COM
pieted according to contract
The reassessment Judge Greene holds TO
be invalid because, FIRST. there vas no mi
tial petition, and the ordinance was
not passed by unanimous vote;
and second, the reassessment is on such o
basis that 1t would entirely relieve some
considerable tracts of land from q proper
tionate part Of the cost. and throw the
burden on other tracts. Property owners,
according to this reassessment, are called
upon 20 pay greater amount of money
than would be required under the Law in
force at the time Of the beginning of the
improvement, so that the reassessment
10 in derogation OF vested rights.
The court did not think 10 necessary to
consider the minor points raised in argu-
msnt. nor the effect of payments made by
intervenors' grantors upon the original
assessment. The prayers of the plaintiffs,
original and intervening, the court holds
should be granted.