The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-07-13
-, - . 80 20. IrteltIgencer.

vail TeAt OF the bptnfDn-
| s4esal Dispatch 70 the Post-Infeiiigencer.
| ~ ,y4pIA. JeiT L. The Supreme court
j. s.st handed dcssu an important d.
l - ia the Boa maa case. covering 81
l ~,sst grade azzsszsHsats and the sla 5a.-
| -. ~ cities fhsTefgr 81 case fh. asaeas-
-, has net been enforced II ~ exclt-
= General Interest and ce,ams8t- Ths
- gexl OF ;ha escisioH f. as follows.
vrsak NJ Bowman. respondent. vs. the
- % CoisaE. appellant - Plaintiff
fsseaxat this action 50 recover The A!uo AK
- 81 certain warrants orlgi0a!lg lsaleg
= az Clark FOR tus Improvement Of 7.
1 .srs.s IN ira Defendant city. Dn august
4 isgt sabi city passed AZ ordinance pre-
3s4!ag sor general s''iisfE1e ~ street m
a.@ege.,,s,f.ss b. assessing tl4f eost thereof
T. tas gFggefsg specially benefited.
Ia a further provision that lh@ city
Assgneii might expTuo moGsya from the
t,s,egsl fund fog q portion o. tGe amount
Isay.ssss5aaing with lhe ueuefst II shoai3
/ - IN. Improvement 40 D. To me eify
i la 5arxe and also Tor street. eF0Asft5.sf.. ln
tsarsl8nee ~ this ordinance rpsu}MttoN
49, adopted for the Improve 1neaf ot tie
L. for which these warrants we're IS
- on %oEesIlbar - 1881 a contract
L. snferaa snto between tsIe said CITY ard
80 C1ATE therefor. Hnirh oniF b. terf3s
1eeggt5ed for payment Tor the woFk from
IL sl.Hd to he created ~ AZ assoasfT4e-at
- the gropeFty fronting ca IN street
| sAefs il was improved The soFk gaS
Reformed gtdes tbs contract and On JalY
IL e9a Il was accepted - tgte city coAh-
II ARD on that dAta the council ahaes Sed
Ia property within The particular district
/ r. The cts; ~ ihe improvement
| qnsxs facts are taken from the COM
psslst Which also contained al allegation
~. fne ASSESSMENT scAenle had failed ana
dssat ne time for enforcing the assess
,ents rad expired under the statute "
lrmaa,l9as. an answar Was filed thereto
* The part Of the city alleging that Toe
j assessment lu question VAS found 70 De
Iffs1ahie OF enforcement by Write OF ccT-
\ sasn supreme cCisft decisions on tae q0rs-
| tsns laroNed. and that on May u. ~.
sfs city had ma8r 4 neT aAseasss1eut on
| In property benefited which j. was eri-
.sFring AZ tie tlnia tnls action wa com
rgated 4 demurrer @aA iutEfpQ%@a 20
shls answer. and sustained hy Tie court.
saa the defendant declining to plead fur
Il1eY judgment 2aH rendered fof the plain
liz sHeTeGpon this appeal WAS taken.
| One question presented regarding the
lfsht Of the lilslnftr to recover on the
ress,f Of an unreasonable delay on the
, ssrf q the city council IN enforcing The
assessment has been disposed Of contrary
~ tie piaintlff's contentious hsF"in. ny
Iae decision rendered in the German
4kmesie4n Savings hank vs. the city of
a 4
Isrn 70 be considered whether the right 10
aafs.ce the assessment scheme had be
4ssms lost ny lapse 81 time. II SO, fur
Her question as - the liability 81 the city
y h. reason Of II Is involved
IN Spokane - Stevens, u Wash, 66I,
Is aslf that assl0u foy the foreclosure Of
Dsaca Hens must D. c0mmencef Within Two
hear after the causs % action accrlisd 4.
ltrA 4 reorganization Of the question does
aso, bad Us q doubt fhe soun3ncsa Of mat
Ysalilng This Uas the statute In force at
Ins ttrns these improvements were under
(.asen tut II does not appear from the an
Isssr AZ What tire the CsHsas Of action Ola
h. assessments accrued II they could havH
iseea' held to have accrued hereunder az
EN The proceedings being invalid the
Ist,y could not arii he said 10 have had a
lIssase Of &C ion on fhaa assessment nor.
Jrrtsl 4 had rlada a valid assessment which
Ieesl ae enforced state rs fftg az Bal
thsi Wash a. Pac geN s. atso Seattle
~ O'Conpeu Wash 3 Psr fle I, has
|sfn held hy some courts that the statute
IaaaM Dc REGARDED az commencing 20 PUN
From the time cause Of action could have
}kten perfected hy tho exercise ~ reason
Ehla dfiierufr RHd such rlls, seems 10 te
= bisi and sound ons
4 Bar II that rufs t. 4aO1frH the lime that
b. city Ysas fo gooa faith proceeding with
r. invalid as=tsasnnenf scheme should hs,
tstMHcl The statute should NOT tfsf q ~nl@t
b have commenced running until the eN.
fnsiinn % thaf fftsta and fhs f,-a ss.N~sf,l r,e
kighi he made within two wears from then.
ITbsrs q nothing in tha answer Ia show
~ she statute haH run under shat theory
= il does nos appear az what tirte Il WAS
lna thst ibs original gesrs sg4lrfff scheme
ssk defective and would have In be ahan-
t1ae4 on NaN II iNes The citA commenced
D. rrw aaetssr ls.nt aforesaid which it was
fosscuiins when thie action VS. De- gun
y statute - limitations IL MOI such
facts should be- strained IN aid II II.
Hafff IS also another View urged upon cur