The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-05-29
HOLDS ASSESSMENT GOOD.
JUDGE HoUsER RULES on QUEEN
ANNE DRIVEWAY PROCEEDINGS.
Test suit brought in which for Frat
Time Ruling Is Had ON the Rene
lit system OF Levying Assessments
VIII he Appealed to Olympia.

II the supreme court sustains Judge
Houser In a decision rendered yesterday
IN the superior court IL will establish
the validity Of almost every street grade
assessment made since 1919. II was tho
first case In which the subdivision plan
Of making improvement districts has
been squarely presented
\ test action was brought by A NJ.
Brookes against the city, and with II.
by stipulation, were consolidated tho
cases OF Lucy Lyon and Harriet Baxter
The Improvement in question was Queen
Annc driveway, the new avenue from
George ktnnear's residence winding up
the hill To Highland drive. These prop
erty owners We're the first TO take adj
vantage Of the law which allows them to
appeal from the assessment levied by the
city council for the purpose OF permitting
the court, after hearing testimony. TO
modify or annul an assessment on the
ground that the amount levied was iarg-
er than the benefit 10 the property in
proportion TO the entire cost
The appellants. represented by Raus-
man, kellehcr n Emory, not only denied
any benefit but questioned the constttu-
ttonahty Of the method OF determining
approximate benefit. relying upon the Ia
nous Village of Norwood case and a
more recent decision by Judge Hanford
in a Spokane case. Incidentally. they
claimed that their property was on
side street selected for the purpose OF
being removed from public highway,
and that they had planted trees and laid
out their grounds in accordance with the
grade established about ten years ago.
5 Baxter, Mr., Brookes and Col. @. q.
Lyon We're called as witnesses to sustain
these contentious
On behalf of the city. represented by
Pratt Il Riddle. IL was maintained that
the present method OF assessing benefits
did not fall within the Village OF Nor
wood rule, which applied only TO an ar
hitrary front foot measurement; but that
IL divided lots into four portions and
equitably distributed the cost SO far as
the front foot rule was applied IL was
merely direction to the board Of public
works 10 pursue an orderly method which
would be free from favoritism. II was
asserted and was no more than a unit
OF measurement by which the executive
officers were to be guided The work be-
ing completed, the city maintained the
property owners We're notified 10 appear
before the council and present such rea-
sons as they might have for q reduction
Judge Houser who was sitting In the
equity department. decided In favor OF the
city. He upheld the view that the meth
Cd OF assessment was only for the purpo~a
of having degree Of uniformity. and
he held that Il was immnterial to the
property owner how the board OF public
owner was not assessed In a sum larger
than the benefit The court further held
that the onus lies upon him 20 show 10
the court that he has not been benefited
to the amount of the assessment I'm pro-
portion TO the entire cost. This had not
been done 10 his satisfaction he said.
and he dismissed the appeal upon motion
OF the city. The property owners will
| probably carry the case to the supreme
court.