The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-12-06
IN FAVOR or THE CITY.
The Last of the Motions In street
Grade Cases

Judge Langley devoted part OF yester-
day TO hearing argument In the case Oh
City of Seattle vs.. Turner. aho sese1@i
other cases in which the same point was
raised They are all for the foreclosure
OF liens for street grade assessments ana
Attorney Battle moved TO strike the com
plants from the Giles on sevsral GROUNDS.
He argued at considerable length To the
effect that the law under which the cases
had been commenced having been repeated
tho cause of aston fell with II, and fur-
Their that 90 much time had elapsed De
tween the fling Of the complaint ana the
service OF summons that the city had been
guilty Of laehes The suits were begun
prior TO is23 when actions were COM
meneed by the fling OF a complaint The
old law had been repealed by Implication
by the act Of iSa3 which made service or
summons the commencement Of an action,
and as summons had not issued until after
the new law went into effect. the court
had never acquired jurisdiction OF the
parties under the old law.
Judge Langley said he had been much
interested In the learned and ingenious
argument 81 Mr. Battle. but he must rule
against him. When the action was once
begun the court acquired jurisdiction OF
the subject matter. ard as these assess
ment cases were largely IN the nature OF
proceedings In rem. he thought the man
rnonlng them 20 a hearing was mere
matter Of subsequent procedure. The
city had acquired R right ~ action before
the enactment - the new law The ef-
feet Of the new law, II Il applied. would
ba 70 denrlva the plaintiff of the right
because the statute 81 limitations. whose
running the commencement OF the action
was Intended 70 stop. would operate 10 In
ferpcss sn eTectud bar. Tie could not be-
neve that % BE the intention % the leEis-
iature or competent II intended + was
evident that the city had followed the re-
euirements Of the changed law so far es
possible
eAs 20 tne iarhes" said Judge Langley.
sit IS manifest to ne that the attorneys
yor the city have shown disposition 70
avoid casts wherever that was n0s<lhle
and 70 extend every leniency 20 the prop
ertv owners compatible with = prot ection
% the interests Of warrant holders. u
seems fatr 10 presume that the city has
acted sIn,olv on the theory that e was
the agen; u the parties. and the legal
n~areasfnxs have been conducted IN
friendly ana rot in a hostile spirit. Courts
ara afwsvs reluctant 20 part With faris-
dfcffon when once Il has lawfully At
tachee. ard they are no less reluctant -
put ont ~ court a party once there IN
good falth.
81 believe" he added as he isft the
bench. u have beard now every possible
objection that could Re raisea In inter
locufery proceedings IN these cases"
ut would r. a convenience 70 The city's
attorneys IN these cases. ard save much
trouble 20 the court" foklueiy said A.
tarnav g a. Riddle for the city. "ana
the tIms % both. y the court would now
issue q general order ow~~rvf'ng gn al
vance 81 dsruurrers ans denying al mo-
lions TO be made hereafter"
The loaE Docket - these InteTrn saiste
contests = now cleared and ne bearing
~ the eases or their merits wIli 10 begun
forthwith. except In three which have
been appealed.