The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-06-25

under the authority Of the charter of the
city OF Houston having no power in the
first instance to consder the question OF
benefits In fixing the amount to be charged
against Mrs Hutcheson's property, a re-
vision and correction of the acts done
could not give relief against the wrong
complained of. In support of this con-
clusion, we call attention to the potent
fact that the city had entered into con-
tract with Storrie for the performance Of
the work at a stipulated price and with
the agreement that he should be paid in
Improvement certificates which would hold
a lien upon the property before the amount
OF the assessment was agcertained. If
the engineer, for instance committed an
error in estimating the cost of the work
In front of Mrs. Hutcheson's property,
then n revision and correction of that act
by the council could be had and the wrong
could be corrected because the contract
itself furnishes the data and the correc-
ton would accord with the contract. H.
however the council had changed the
basis Of the assessment against Mrs
Hutcheson's property whereby the amount
assessed would be lessened, the contract
would have been annulled. construc-
ton should not be placed upon the Ian
guage that would empower the city TO
destroy the contract without the consent
of Storrie. The claim that. upon petition
afforded relief from the unlawful exac-
ton is wholly unsupported by the terms
OF the law and is III direct conflict with
many OF Its provisions. The wrong did
not consist in failure to follow the d.
reetions of the law. but in obeying. its
unconstitutional requirements,
me authority conferred upon the court
TO issue an Injunction restraining the
council from proceeding further is limit
cd to THE facts alleged in the protest"
and is no broader than that vested In the
council The court is simply empowered
by writ of injunction, to restrain the coun-
eh from doing acts contrary to the char
yer and to correct any errors which that
body might have corrected.
IL is claimed that the jurisdiction of
the court must be held to be broad enough
10 embrace the subject OF estoppel pro-
Vlded for in the law; therefore the court
ny injunction could inquire into and cor
reet anything done which affected the
validity OF the levy, but we think that
the estoppel to question the validity" OF
tue levy must be constructed to forbid the
owner 10 set up such inyalidlty as might
arise from q want OF compliance with the
terms OF the charter and not such as
~ 'Bnl grow out of want of authority in
the city to make the assessment, The
Il5hI TO apply to a court for Injunction is
tas ABOVE stately expressly limited to the
l"e'S alleged in the petition to the coun-
ull, the authority OF the district court IS
FeNlsory and confined to correcting the
acts done by the council and city officers.
~ me legislature had enacted in plain
words mat failure to apply for injunction
against levy of the cost OF Improvement
upon me property should estop the owner
% ueny the validity of such assessment
me law would be void, because the legis-
nature could not validate by estopped an
ACT mat II Is forbidden by the constitution
to authorize.
1t is asserted that Mrs. Hutcheson might
nave had the question of benefits iuvesti-
gated In this suit and the assessment re-
auced so as not to exceed the special BEN
enIs received The charter provides.
And at all times and in all proceedings
In any court in which the validity Of any
special TAX assessment that might have
been laid under the charter Of the city
OF Houston or amendments thereto, as
shown by any roll OF ownership, purport-
ing to have been prepared by the city en-
gineer in accordance with the provisions
thereof, may be called in question; a re-
eovery shall nevertheless be had in suca
suit fer such sum as ought to have been
assessed against the tract Of land involved
according to the mode of apportionment,
provided in the law OF said city applicable
10 such improvement, and II for any rea-
son, in law or fact, such recovery can not
be had then n recovery shall be allowed.
Quantum yalebat. not exceeding the con-
tract price for the Improvement in front
Of the lot or lots. block or blocks, or tracts
of land involved, according TO the trout
foot rule or standard, and II for any rea-
son, IN law or fact, recovery can not be
had in either OF the above modes. then
recovery shall be allowed not exceeding
the contract price. 10 the extent and ac-
oording TO the standard OF benefits from
the improvements In question TO the lot
or lots block or blocks, or tracts Of land
involved"
The legislature attempted to secure con-
tractors for this class OF work against all
contingencies and to authorize them, In
case their contracts and the proceedings by