Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1920-11-30

creased value of the property
created by the alleged inn
provement"
Estate Laws Violated"
State laws covering street paw
ing do not properly protect tn,
property owner, the petition al
ieges, because under these laws tn,
governing authorities may disre
gard the protests of propert.
owners and in the letting of tn,
contract for paving West Tijera
avenue they did disregard the in
terests and protests of the prop
erty owners. These state laws un
der which paving contracts are let
the petition further declares, per.
NIT the taking and confiscation d
property without due process OF
law M.
In this connection it is contend.
ed by Mr.. Taylor that in event a
lot is not of value equivalent tC
the cost of paving, and the owner
refuses to pay the assessments, the
city may not only sell his lot under
Ia prior lien given the city auto.
matically under the present state
laws, but if The sum realized from
the sale of the lot is not sufficient
to meet the cost of the paving, he
is personally liable to make up the
deficit. He contends that such a
process Is ccnfiscation of property
and a violation of the FOurteenth
amendment to the constitution.
Another point raised in the petit
fhst 10 la, 81.
liar cases, is the contention that the
city owns the title to city streets
outright and that 1t therefore can
not assess the cost of paving its
own property against private prop
erty owners. The federal govern
ment granted the land in the city
directly to the municipal corpora
ton, he says, and the city gave
tide to individuals for lots. but re-
tains a direct title to the streets.
In other cities. with the exception
OF Las Vegas, where similar con-
dition exists. the title to the streets
rests finally in owners of abutting
property and the city has the title
only upon the use of the street for
public purpose and when the street
is abandoned or closed. the title re-
Verts back to the property owners,
according to Mr. Taylor
In this connection the petition
contends that the assessment of
cost of paving against property and
in addition making it a personal
liability against the property owner
is a violation of the state and fed
eral constitutions.
City Indebtedness Illegal?
Another violation of the state
by the city is alleged
in the petition in the declaration
that there is Il constitutional re-
against municipalities be-
coming indebted more than 4 per
cent of the assessed valuation, and
that the legislature has reduced the
limit of Indebtedness to
| l-3 per cent. The city has ex-
ceeded this limit, according to the
petition. and therefore the issuance
of bonds to the paving company is
illegal.
Another law is dug up in the pc
tition whereby it is alleged that the
city has no right to issue bonds to
render aid to any private individ-
ual or corporation" 1t is contend
ed that by the issuance of paving
bonds to the New Mexico Construc-
ton company and in the terms of
the contract between the city and
the company, the city undertakes
ito pay all expenses of enforcing
the paving liens and to guarantee
TO the paving company the pay
ment in full of the assessment GER
and is violating this law.
The final paragraph, which out
lines the character of relief sought
by the plaintiffs. includes the fol-
lowing points; That the contract
between the city ana paving COM
pany be declared null and void;
that the cloud upon TIER property
be removed and title quieted; that
the paving work he enioined; that
against the property
be enjoined; and any attempt at
be cancelled; that
whatever bonds and assessment
certificates are issued be delivered
to the court for cancellation and
further issuance forever enjoined.
Those Bringing Snit.
Those named as parties to the
suit are as follows: George f..
Ellis, A. Fleiseher, Thomas F.. Kel-
cher, A. Singer. Jesus Romero,
Frank Georges. Della Georges, ].
r. Madrid, Margaret r. Medler f.
p. Khant. AL Coleman. Mrs. j. KEEL
cher, Pietro Vichi, j. a. Garcia, f.
F.. Trotter, Mrs 7. o. Greening,
Margaret Chadwick, z. DinelH. o.
J. w. Palmer. Katie Bad
aracco, Ellen Cowell. and Victoria
Dodd.
Monday was the final day allow
ed the plaintiffs to file their sup
answer, Mr.. Taylor
stated that he did not reach the
court house yesterday in time to
file the amendment, but that he
advised the clerks office that it
was ready and placed it in the mail
afternoon.
w. A. Keleher, city attorney, who
will represent the city in the pend
ing suit. declared last night that he
had been served with Il copy of
the amended answer and that the
city would not insist on the observ-
nnce of the time limit, but would
nA,,s,f1nY ,a 1