Court Opinion

ID: 9829698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:32:29.122212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:04.408291
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Plaintiffs in error have filed their motion for rehearing and therein-attack the conclusion reached by this court, to the effect that the notice addressed to the “T. H. Seanlan Estate,” which was received by Miss Kate Seanlan, was a sufficient compliance with the city charter relative to the notice to be posted in the post office.
We see no reason to recede from our conclusion, and as tending to support the same we cite Elmendorf v. City of San Antonio (Tex. Civ. App.) 223 S. W. 631.
In the case above cited the San Antonio court held that, in considering the question of the notice to be given to property owners of the purpose of a city to pave its streets, “cases involving citations are not helpful because the decisions are based upon mandatory statutes prescribing that the names of all parties must be given.” The. court then said:
“In passing upon the reasonableness of notice given, it is necessary to consider the nature of the governmental power sought to be exercised and the result sought to be accomplished. It should be suited to the efficient exercise of the power and adapted to attain the desired result, as well as just to the parties to be affected. The levy of special assessments for local improvements is an exercise of the taxing power, and, while notice and a hearing are required because the owners have a right to be heard on the questions of apportionment and benefits, still it is obvious that to require too great strictness as to matters of form will seriously hamper the governmental agency in the exercise of its powers. We conclude that the notice involved in this case is not void for unreasonableness in failing to state the names of the three defendants instead of describing them as the children of Mary Elmendorf. We therefore hold that it was sufficient under the terms of the statute. As persuasive of the correctness of this holding, we cite Klein v. Tuhey, 13 Ind. App. 74, 40 N. E. 144; Kendig v. Knight, 60 Iowa, 29, 14 N. W. 78.”
The motion is rbfused.