Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1911-01-12


Rerestor buil1iug d one cOrne
Property IN these two half blUck
will lay ID proportion to tue \.
srcct've appraised valuations, LGi!t
Ilngs rot countsd. when tue Intel
sscting street 10 paid foT the sam
rule Is followed. The block Of 5pruc
: from Bird to Attn will be paid for b
the east half Of the block Of whicl
the Reflector building is ons corne
and the west half Of the block o
which the Masonic temple Is ON
corner.
What the Courts Say.
The supreme court decision In thu
4Oth Kansas reports on this subject
Is:
Opinion of Clogston c.; But one
question is presented for considera
ion, and that is, what is the proper
manner Of levying an assessment fc''
the paving and curbing Of street
between two blocks? To determine
this question, Section 4, chapter 80,
of the Laws of 1887, must be con-
strued. So much Of said section as
effects this question is as follows:
"And for all paving, matchmaking,
curbing and guttering of the streets
and alleys, the assessment shall be
made for the full cost thereof ON
each block separately; on all lots
and pieces of ground to the center
of the block on each side Of such
street OF avenue the distance i'm
proved or to be improved.
Under this statute the city curbed
and paved Sixth street In the city
Of Atchison, being the street separat-
ing blocks 1C and 80 plaintiffs pro-
perty being q part Of block Is; and
under this statute the city was seek
ing and claiming the right to charge
the cost Of the paving and guttering
n the center of the street to the lots
and pieces Of land TO the center OF
block tG, and the cost of paving and
guttcring the other half to the lots
and pieces Of land to the center Of
block 80.
The plaintiff in error contends that
this manner of assessment is wrong:
that the entire cost of paving the
street between said blocks should be
ascertained and the levy made upon
the half-blocks on either side Of the
street for the full cost of such i'm
provement, according to the value
Of said lots. We are inclined to the
view taken by the plaintiff In error,
and think that the statute above
quoted plainly indicates that as the
manner Of assessing the cost Of such
improvements. The statute says as
shall be made for "the
full cost thereof" Full cost thereof"
refers to paving and guttering Of the
street. Upon what property is this
assessment to be made? ION all lots
and pieces Of ground to the center
Of the block On each side Of the street
Or avenue to be improved" The
has doubtless arisen in de-
what is meant by leach
block separately" We think that
his means that each block, or the
street between each block for the
distance of a block, shall be separate
rom that of an adjoining block In 1
he city; that each block, or the two
divided by the street, the
distance of block, becomes block
,r taxing district as contemplated by
lection 4, and does not nave reference
% a division of the costs and APP
of the expenses of It's
between the two half
blocks divided by the street.
To give this statute the meaning
ontended for by the defendant in |
,rror, would, in our judgment, in 4
many instances work great injustice. |
The half block on one side Of the \
treet may be of comparatively little 9
alue, while the half-block on the q
opposite side may be of great value. |
% divide the entire cost of the i'm q
equally between the two 4
would throw as great '
urden, upon the inferior half-bloek
s upon the more valuable half; and
a some instances the improvement
( the street might cost more and r
be assessment levied upon the pro-
erty be greater than the entire value
I the half-block; but by division
nd apportionment of the expense, !.
s contended for by the plaintiff in !.
rror, It would leave the burden upon :
he half-block on either side Of the .
treet, according to the value Of the !,
its and pieces Of ground composing
ach half block.
The summary OF the courts decis-