The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-07-15
First Avenue Property Owners
Enjoin the City.
II n Claimed That the Legal steps to
Obtai. Consent Of Those Affected
by the Improvement and to Avoid
Danaxes Were Taken Under .
demnation May BE Necessary.

The opposition 70 the regarding OF First
avenue north. which. until the regarding
was actually begun, manifested itself only
in words. has since assumed such form
that It Is quite possible that the work may
be considerably delayed. Those whose
property is inquired by the regrade and
who are not satisfied with the damages
awarded by the appraisers appointed by
the city, are now bringing injunction
suits TO prevent the contractors, Smart &
Co.. from grading in front OF their proper
ty. Up TO date four such suits have been
filed. the last one being that brought by
Eva L. Grasse yesterday. She Is the own
er OF property on the corner of First ave-
nue. and Pine street. and claims that she
viii be irreparably injured by the action OF
the city If IL Is allowed to grade the street
in front Of her property without first conf
pensating her. She says she has only re-
Trained from suing this long by reason Of
promises made by the city that damages
would be allowed her.
The three previous suits did not hinder
the contractors to any great extent They
merely stopped grading on the forbidden
portion OF the street and continued the
granted Mrs. Grasse by Judge Moore yes
ierday. however. the contractors were Sc
riously impeded. They wished to work on
the street just where the injunction pre-
vented them from even sticking a shovel
in the dirt. Contractor Smart Immediately
went to Corporation Counsel Humphrey To
complain. and was advised by the latter
TO consult his tSmart'0 own lawyers.
IL is the claim of those who have obtain
al mi ngsi nr haf rff hu hae
from the start in the lega, steps for OBJ
tanning the consent Of property owners to-
the regrade. They claim that the APP
praisal and award made by the city was
under an act OF the legislature repealed
by the condemnation act of 1899 and Is
invalid. Corporation Counsel Humphrey.
while expressing no opinion as TO the law
in the case. says that he believes in al
lowing the regarding to be commenced be-
fore instituting injunction suits the prop
erty owners have lost their right to in
functions to stop the work and must be
satisfied 10 claim and sue for damages
after the work has been completed.
On that theory Mr.. Humphrey will con-
test the suits now pending. If the courts
hold that his view of the matter is not
correct and grant permanent injunc.ions,
then Mr.. Humphrey. in all probability,
win commence condemnation proceedings
under the act OF 1881 This viii all take
time and unless some arrangement to the
contrary is made, the work Will. be stopped
during the whole litigation.
When the property owners first began
threatening injunctions Corporation Coun-
sci Humphrey started settling their greiv.
anees By arbitration without suit oe. was
In a short time ordered by the city council
to dessst. He still thinks that this would
have been the simplest wgy out of awk-
ward complications, and the result is II is
said that there Is slight coolness be-
tween the council and the corporation
counsel's office.