Payette enterprise. (Payette, Canyon Co., Idaho) 1909-1935, 1914-03-05
Judge Bryan's
Decision
February %, 1914.
Gentlemen:

n In re w. A. Coughancur VS. Cit
of Payette. This cause has been sui
mitted on defendants motion to di
: solve the temporary injunction her.
4 tofore issued The complaint allege
that in the proceedings lead ng u
) to the letting Of the contract in cor
troversy that a number of irregular
ties have been committed by tn
J council A reference to Chapter s
CT the laws of 1911 shows that tn,
city council is clothed by law witt
absolute power to provide fer ant
make such improvements withou
submitting the same to vote CT any
parties interested. The authority
there is arbitrary and the right OF
the council to make such improve
ments cannot be disputed. See.
of the said act providss that inter st
ed parties may file a protest against
such improvement, but under the
same section such protest is entirely
unavailing for any purpose provided
stated number of the members of
the council vote for such improve
ment In the last analysis the coun-
Gil has complete and unrestricted
power to make said improvement re-
Igardless of the protest of any per-
sons interested.
In the case CT Clyde VS. City of
Moscow, 23rd Idaho 592 the Su-
preme Court has held that substan-
tial compliance with the prov v,sions
Of the statute is all that is required
from the city and that literal com
pliance is not necessary. In this
case the court held that if tho ordi-
nances passed by the City served to
give the plaintiff notice of the &C.
ton of the city nothing more is re-
quired, even though the strict let
ter of the law had not been followed.
On page 500 of the same decision the
court holds, in effect that before
the plaintiff is entitled to an order
Of Injunction he must show by the
pleadings that he, individually is
hurt by the failure of the council to |
comply with the letter o. the stat |
ute. In other words the court has
held that even though the ordinances
we're irregular to some extent, unless
plaintiff can show that such irregu-
arity affects him personally to his
injury, he cannot invoke the equity
power of the court through injunc-
ion.
The complaint alleges that the Or
finance of intention does not name
he street or avenue to be improved
lor the points between which such
is to be made. A ref
,rence to this ordinance disc,oses thEt
t describes the exterior boundary OF
he improvement district and also
Iames the lots and blocks included
herein. l think as a matter of law
ach property owner is charged with
knowledge of the property he owns,
nd inasmuch as this ordinance
ames the actual lots and blocks COW
red by the proposed improvement a,
istrict l think it cannot be contend
d that the plaintiff could not ascer-
ain whether his individual proper
Y was within the district. The COM
Jaint also alleges that the general
haracter of the Improvement is not
tated in said ordinance Section 1
f the ordinance states that the i'm
rovement district is for the purpose
f building sidewalks and placing
nrbing within the territory en-
raced within said district. In the
ase of Clyde VS. City of Moscow, e
lpra, a similar provision in the or g
nance was held sufficient by the \
upreme Court. A number of other i
bjections are raised as to the suffic- /:
,ncy of the ordinance of intention S
nd the ordinance of creation. 1 p
link careful examination Of these c
rdinances will show that they sub il
jantially comply with the provisions a
: Chapter 81 above mentioned. Par |.
graph 10 of the complaint alleges y
lat the ordinance of creation makes il
D estimate CT the cost per square e
,ot for cement sidewalk, where the
idth of the walk is more than five n
,et. 1t will be observed that there L
as no allegation in the complaint p
the effect that within the improve G
Ient district there is to be any walk a
ider than five feet. l think before v
lie plaintiff could claim that the or v
nance is insufficient in this regard c.
would be up to him to allege that ls
lere was sidewalk actually to be Il
lilt of a greater width than five Il
,et. Paragraph IL alleges that there II