The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-05-22
REFUSE. TO BE ASSESSED
MASSACHUSETTS-AV PROPER
TY OWNERS SUE WORKS BOARD.
Point at Issue Is Whether Work Done
on Avenue Was Repair Work or
an Improvement.

Owners of property abutting on Massa-
chusetts avenue between Delaware and
East streets filed suit in Room 8. Marion
Superior Court, yesterday afternoon. ask
ing for restraining order and injunction
against the city of Indianapolis, Board of
Public Works and the Marion County Con-
struction Company TO restrain the defend
ants from making out an assessment roll
compelling or attempting to compel the
plaintiff property owners to pay for the re-
surfacing of Massachusetts avenue from
New York and Delaware streets to North
and East streets.
The plaintiffs are Joseph F. FIack. George
j. Marott, Ella P. Marott. Herman Munk,
Augustus L. Mason, Annie Porter Mason,
George B. Yandes. Luther d. Waterman.
Henry NJ. Talbot, Thomas H. Spann,
George R. Sullivan. Flora Wulschner. Mari
eta A. Davis. Edwin L. Folsom, George
Roswinkle. A. Roswinkle, F. M. Montgom-
cry, Edward E. Stout and Thomas L. Sui
Ivan, guardian of Lucy Palmer, Mary B.
Keith and Isabel S. Korbly.
The point at issue is whether the resur-
facing of Massachusetts, avenue is to be
considered as repair work or as an I'm
provement. Under the law. abutting prop
erty owners must pay for the improvement
by assessment, but the city pays for re-
pair work. Should the court consider the
work as repairs and grant the injunction
that the proposed resurfacing of a number
of the streets of the city will have to be
abandoned, for the reason the city has no
money to pay for the work.
CITIZENS COMPLAINT.
The complaint filed yesterday calls at
tention to the protest made by the plaintiff
property owners to the Board of Works
last July, when the board advertised for
bids for the improvement of Massachusetts,
avenue by resurfacing the street. The
plaintiffs aver they served notice on the
board that ii had no right to order an i'm
provement by which the property owners
were to be assessed, and had merely right
to order the street repaired. The board
went ahead, and in September of last year
let a contract to the Marion County Con-
struction Company for $424 lineal foot
for resurfacing the street with asphalt
and laying Hayden blocks for the cutters.
The complaint says the Board of Public
Works is about to declare the contract
completed, and to make out assessments
against the abutting property. 1t is said
the cost to the plaintiffs would aggregate
$500
The Board of Works recently adopted
resolutions ASKING Tor DiOS on the reSurfac-
ing of Virginia avenue. and If the suit filed
yesterday is successful similar suit will
doubtless be filed by Virginia-avenue prop
erty owners
W. c.. Smith, secretary and treasurer of
the Marion County Construction Company
showed much surprise last evening when
informed of the suit brought by Massa-
chusetts-avenue property owners. He said
his company had completed the work. ana
believed that the property owners had de-
cided to withdraw the objections made be-
So q. hoo vi lns 49, TT
one of the property owners had Informed
him that no suit would be filed.
1.-The property owners have no legal
grounds to secure q restraining order to
prevent the city from making out its as
sessment on the work. If the city and our
company were to be enjoined, the time to
do 1T was before the work was started. 1t
is all finished now, and / think they are
| too late with their demands"