The herald., 1896-12-31
ADEDIcATIoN DEFINED.
Pasadena Upheld in Assessing Property
Holders for Street improvements

An opinion was handed down yester-
day by Judge York in the suit of S. Ro-
senberger against the board Of trustees
of the city of Pasadena. in the course of
which certain points are dwelt upon that
are of interest to property holders gen.
orally.
The action in question was brought to
annul the proceedings of the board of
trustees of the city of Pasadena insofar
as the said board approved a board of
| commissioners appointed by it to assess
damages and benefits in the opening of a
public street. known as Hudson avenue.
The theory of the plaintiff is that in
asmuch as the approval of the commits
sioner's report imposes an assessment
for benefits on him. that thus far it is
judicial act. 1t is conceded by plain
tiff that the action Of the trustees of
Pasadena cannot be sustained only so
far as such acts are judicial, and that
the only judicial act in the proceedings
is the approval of the commissioner
report operating to impose an assess
ment on certain property. The defend
ant, on the other hand, contends that
the approval of the report is not a u
dicial act, and cites authorities to sus-
tain that stand.
"A Judicial act" says Judge York,
determines what an existing law is,
and what the rights of the parties are
with reference to transactions already
had or to be had hereunder; a legisla-
tive act prescribes what the law shall
be in future cases arising under it. In
the case at bar the conditions were Gre
ated by legislative action, but the as
sessemnts were not Immediately inr-
posed, but were imposed by hearing ev-
idence and determining the amounts
to be assessed as depending upon the
benefits conferred. The action of tho
board of trustees in approving the re-
port of the commissioners, which pro-
vided for an assessment so imposed, was
judicial act depending upon the just
ness of each and all the assessments
made, and it had the effect of judg-
ment imposing liens against the prop
erty assessed. Such action can, there
fore. be reviewed by the court"
At the time of the alleged dedication
7. p. Lukens was one Of the owners of
the property sought to be taken for
widening the street There was street
east OF the property alleged to be ded-
icated about thirty-five feet wide. The
addition Of the alleged dedicated portion
would make the street sixty feet wide
to the extent of the depth of the lot
from which it is claimed the dedica-
tion was made. Twenty feet of the orig
inal street was taken from the Lukens
ioI anu utteen Leet from lOr ADJOINING
the street on the east side. Mr.. Lukens
stated to a party owning the frontage
on the other side of the street that he
would dedicate the land in question: for
the purpose of widening the street. He
also indicated an intention of widening
it, permitting removal of grapevines
and the grading of the same for street
by private parties and paying therefor.
Being opened only about one-third of
the way through the block, it was trav-
eled only by parties approaching 1t from
First street or going south and turning
west on First street, when corner Of
the alleged dedicated portion was
passed over. Here was an OFFER" says
the court, Ito dedicate sufficient, II ac-
cepted, to constitute a dedication. Such
acceptance must have been made before
q withdrawal Of the offer"
ehortlyafter making this offer, ine1Ss7.