Case Name: The City of New Whatcom, Respondent, v. The Bellingham Bay Improvement Company, Appellant
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1894-12-26
Citations: 10 Wash. 378
Docket Number: No. 1408
Parties: The City of New Whatcom, Respondent, v. The Bellingham Bay Improvement Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 378–379

Head Matter:
[No. 1408.
Decided December 26, 1894.]
The City of New Whatcom, Respondent, v. The Bellingham Bay Improvement Company, Appellant.
MUNICIPAE CORPORATIONS — STREET IMPROVEMENTS — ESTOPPEE.
Acquiescence on the part of an abutting owner in a street improvement does not estop him to claim that the assessment is not authorized by law.
Appeal from Superior Court, Whatcom County.
C. W. Dorr, for appellant.
Cade & Freeman and John R. Crites, for respondent.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Stiles, J.
This case was commenced for the foreclosure of a street assessment lien, for the improvement of Holly street from Forrest to Harrison. It was in nearly all of its facts exactly like City of New Whatcom v. Bellingham Bay Improvement Co., 9 Wash. 639 (38 Pac. 163); but having been the first case of that series tried there was a judgment for the city. The method of assessing cost of improvement in front of each lot prevailed in this instance as well as the others, and that fact must cause a reversal.
An appeal is made here to sustain the judgment because the agents of the appellants stood by and saw the work being done and did not interfere by injunction. Where juris diction has been obtained to do such work by local assessments, acquiescence on the part of the abutting owner may be invoked against a claim of mere irregularities on his part, but no such principle can be applied when the assessment is one not authorized by law, as in this case. Vancouver v. Wintler, 8 Wash. 378 (36 Pac. 378); Howell v. Tacoma, 3 Wash. 711 (29 Pac. 447, 28 Am. St. Rep. 83); Welty, Assessments, § 307; State v. District Court, 29 Minn. 63 (11 N. W. 133).
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for dismissal.
Dunbar, C. J., and Scott, J., concur.