The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-01-12
BIG LEGAL VICTORY.
prouerty Benefited Cannot Es-
cape Payment.
rur CITY SAVED MUCH MONEY.
orsaut Decision OF the Supreme
Court on street Grade Assessments
triumph for City's Counsel.

''s....sd nv the city. It's effects will he
-y~scnlng. and one immediate benefit
- - the security Of the city OF Seattle
-~4,4. loss OF possibly $500 90. II not more.
80 ,sprarne court has sustained the appeal
100 esty against the ruling OF the lower
80 A the case Of Frederick against the
= ~ seattle. which involved the question
w 49, validity OF the reassessment OF Di-
Ysssoa street
!. 1851 rho city proceeded TO improve Di-
- street under the then new freehold
- carter at the expense Of the abutting
80. For causes which are now ifnma-
.s,iat the assessment was held 20 be In
80 The city thereupon took ali the
-aeeadiugs necessary 70 a reaszessment.
- .he Eroperty owners fled a petition for
.,vs, az certiorart. The court commanded
rsf,1rn Of the proceedings relative to the
swnvsyeuant and To the reassessment The
- clerk fled his return 10 the writ. the PEE
.ssausrs accepted the return as cOmpIete,and
- city moved TO quash the writ The
.srsts OF the case came on for hearing by
s1ss.rt upon a single argument. The main
.sntention Of the property owners was that
- rAaxsessment law ~ 1888 was unconsti-
,,fianal and void. because II pretended to
.ushorlze where. at the time the improve
renf was undertaken, prescribed presimi-
,sgies were not complied with. in that when
:. APPLIED II operates as retroactive legis-
h,!on and the taking Of property without
x,e process OF Law.
me city maintained that even IL the pre-
.r-ft4a petition had never In fact existed,
-, the act OF 1893. under which the reas-
ssssment was made. provides for valid
stsrclse OF the taxing power and rs constf-
tsisoEal In oil its provisions. and by its
,srms was intended 70 afford a remedy IN
Fach a case as this. and where such defects
s.p found as were in this action claimed 10
sxls, In order that failure to proceed in
strict compliance with the forms Of the
hx shall not result ia disregard OF equity.
The court upheld ali the contentious OF
he property owners, and rendered jadg-
men, sustaining the writ and quashing the
assessment. That judgment the supreme
curt has now reversed.
The decision was written BY Judge Dun
bs- and is concIrred in by Judges Hoyt
and AndeFs. After dealing with some OF
6 tie minor points, the court goes on TO say:
Many preliminary questions are dis
eusSed on this appeal relating to the mode
q procedure. the right of the plaintiff 20
invoke the writ OF certlorari, etc, but with
re view we take OF the merits or the case
Eill not be necessary to discuss these
tslimlnary questions II seemed 10 have
sesa the view Of the learned judge who
usa the case below that the curative act
q 80 did not authorize a new assessment
or rsassessment Sri any case where the
~ TIE lack OF any jarisdlctlonal prerequis-
IL and that inasmuCh as the city charter
rsyxons were such as 20 require that the
ssexment- whore the mode OF payment
sss . be by Immediate payment, should
kg petition signed by the owners OF more
asn three-fifths the number of front feet
q he Auditing properly, and IL such peii-
tos was necessary 10 give the common
eoancll Jurisdiction 10 make the original
assessment. II was necessary to have pre-
eeaea the re6ssessnlent in order 10 make IL
fsld and that II was not the intention Of
tie legislature in the new act To do away
with the requirement of the petition, and
tat on constitutional grounds work done
Ender an absolutely void assessment could
BOT by reassessment or in any other way.
b imposed by the city upon the property
benefited.
We think the learned Judge was mis-
taken. both as TO the intention OF the act
ard the power Of the legislature to pass
sch an act II seems plain to US from the
reading OF the statute, that the legislature
!ssended TO provide for a reassessment N
al cases where the assessment had been
hea 20 be void whether for ifregularity or
idr want OF prerequisites which went 20
ihs jurisdiction OF the council 10 levy the
assessment and 10 order the work done.
TIE language Of the statute is that:
Whenever an assessment for laying
kr - gravellng, regraveling.
Or FOR any local Improvement which has
heretofore been made or which may here
after be made by any city or town. has been
O. may De hereafter declared void. and It's
enforcement under the charter or laws
governing such city or town refused by the
sorts of this state. or FOR any cause what
eyer, has been heretofore or may be here
after set aside annulled or declared void
hF nFN ~ ~irF#v
q any declsioa OF such court. the council
e such city or town shall by ordinance,
tFder and make new assessment or re-
assessment upon the lots, blocks or par
eeis OF land which have been or viii be
heaefted by such local Improvement etc.
This language seems 70 clearly contem-
Fate a case where there was no turisdic-
nqa IN the city council 20 order the i'm
TtYements or make the assessments.
which Is the kind OF a case that the courts
souss declare void. But 10 put the ques-
! Ton beyond peFadventure. the legislature,
2 expressing TIE intent OF the act. says:
Il being the true intent and meaning q
ta*act 20 make the cost and expense OF all
neal improvements payable by the real es-
h'e benefited by such Improvement by
BAKING a reaSsess nent therefor. notwith-
saLding HAT tho proceedings OF the COM
non council or hoard OF public works or
any q It's officers may be found irregular
e defective whether turisdictionaI or
2iasrwlses
SAna Il further provides that. The fat
Vat tAe contract has been let or that such
Afroyement shall have been made and
@Tpleted in whole or IN part. shall not
F9tFent sl12A assessment from being made
- that ~ seems the Intention OF the
ksis.ature 70 provide for cases where
@e1e vas no jurisdiction IN the common
sssneb 20 act Is too plainly expressed 70
p Misunderstood %or Is there anything
y the act 70 Indicate that before this re-
assessment can - made the prerequisite
, seuon under the Oh charter shall exist
s@'sT the new: that Is 70 say, there Is no
@anstlon thar before an assessment can
: made under the new at, the petition
toViced for by the old law shall he pre-
- led The legislature could itself have
-%ae tssfs assessment directly, without
eF refereacc az AL but * saw ~ 20 dele
Sc ne authority 70 the council and u
2~s eeleEate u with al the power which
~s legislative ho-lv possessed.
10 rue dsduCel from ell the authori-
seems - oe "a substance that y the
~ssatgre had tae power IN the first in
.eee 70 make valid the assessment
-t,aeat The requirement Which was dire
sLaea BY the authorities. &c can BY lesis-
~ye enactment dispense with that re-
s-teoent IN providing for a new assess
- ans there can 5s no question bat
- aeaes tae almost unlimited exercise
/ ,.seIity cn questions Cf tax or assess
4 - 1Ae legislature "a the first instance
1 gave provided that this work should
/ ,sae ard The assessment made without
f.tN~alreBeGt ~ any kind Of q petition
t,..s,es % oe Vel established by ire au-
ses Nat the fart that a Judgment @
1 ~ @As pronounced an assessment void
-. wy preclude tire legislature Fr1ra max
/ ,-,.4ssoh ter the reassessulc2t on such