Great Falls tribune., 1922-02-21
BUTTE AUTHORIZED
To COLLECT TAXES
by SUPREME BENCH
Silver Bow Court Reversed in
Decision on Appeal Against
Assessment.
Snecial to The TrihInc.

special TO Ihe Irbltne.
Helena, Feb. 2o.-The city of Butte
is authorized to collect a special i'm.
provement tax from the property OF
Joseph G. Stettheimer and others sit.
uated on Front street in the city OF
Butte, the state supreme court holds
In decision handed down Monday IN
which the district court of Silver Bow
county is reversed in it's Judgment re-
straining the city treasurer from the
collection of the tax. The title OF the
case is Joseph G. Stettheimer, Joseph
G. Stettheimer as administrator OF the
estate of Joseph s. Baer, Walter .;
GRAY. Margaret G.. Blaisdell and
Charles D. Boyles against the city of
Butte and Herman Strasburger, treas
urer of the city Of Butte.
The city had caused a sidewalk and
curling to be constructed along the
street abl1tting the property belonging
to the plaintiffs and levied special
assessment. Plaintiffs objected and
secured restraining order from the
lower court upon the ground that the
property owned by them was mining
property and that the improvements
did not enhance the value Of the prop
erty "for mining purposes
City to Decide
The supreme court says in the
opinion which is written By Associate
Justice w. L. Holloway that it is
true that the only basis upon which
special assessments for local improve
ments are sustained, is that the par
ticular property charged derives a
special benefit substantially conmen-
surate with the burden imposed upon
of
the question of whether the construc-
fitted plaintiffs property was ques-
tion for determination by the legisla-
tive branch of the city government, a
determination with which the courts
cannot interfere except upon the
ground of fraud or ''such manifest
abuse of discretion as amount to ar
bitrary action"
The court holds that the property
of plaintiffs was benefited by the i'm
provement. The opinion in conclusion
says:
Property Must Bear Cost
Except as indicated above. 1t is the
rule now recognized generally, that if
the property receives special beneIi,s
for any use to which it is reasonably
adapted, it may be made to bear the
cost of the improvements. The reason
for this rule is manifest and the
present case furnishes an apt illustra-
ton of the absurdity to which con-
trary doctrine might lead. The REG
ord discloses that the properties ad-
jacent to plaintiffs property are oc-
cupied by buildings devoted to busi-
ness and residential purposes. and no
one would have the temerity to insist
that those properties may not be
specially benefited by sidewalks and
curbing constructed in front OF them.
IF this court should hold that because
of its present use for mining purposes,
plaintiffs property may not be
charged with any part of the cost OF
the improvements, and II, upon the day
the remittitur is issued, plaintiffs
should abandon the present use and
devote their property to business or
residential purposes or sell it to others
who should change the use, then the
property would benefit by the improve
,nents but at the city's expense.
Further discussion is unnecessary.
We deem the question before us not
open to serious controversy. Prima
face plaintiffs property will be spec
ially benefited to the extent OF the
charge imposed upon it. and the bur-
dent was upon the owners to show, as
they have not shown. that because of
some special circumstances their prop
erty will not be specially benefited and
that the city acted arbitrarily in max
ing the assessment"