Court Opinion

ID: 9831279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:59:20.698624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:33.469611
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the motion for a rehearing it is contended that the cancellation of the paving certificates issued to the Uvalde Paving Company does not necessarily deprive that company of adequate compensation for the services it performed in making the street improvements in front of the property of the appellees. As supporting that contention, reference is made to article 1095 of the Revised Civil Statutes, which is as follows:
“The governing body of any city shall be empowered to correct any mistake or irregularity in any proceedings with reference to such improvement, or the assessment of the cost thereof against abutting property • and its owners, and in case of any error or invalidity, to reassess against any abutting property and its owner the cost or part of the cost of improvements, subject to the terms hereof, not in excess of the benefits in enhanced value of such property from such improvement, and to make reasonable rules and regulations for a notice to and hearing of property owners before such reassessment.”
That article has no application to a situation like that disclosed by the facts in this case. The statute quoted was intended to authorize a reassessment for the purpose of correcting errors or mistakes in proceedings essential to a valid assessment, not to correct errors of judgment in the amount of the benefits assessed. An appeal to the courts is the proper method of securing relief from excessive assessments. In the proceeding here complained of there was no error or mistake requiring a reassessment. All' the property owners had been legally notified of the hearing to be held; they appeared at that hearing and presented their objections to the paving scheme. After that hearing the council had the power to render its decision overruling the objections presented, without any further notice. After having completed the work the paving company could legally object to a reassessment of benefits to property owners which would reduce its compensation to an amount less than the contract price upon which the work was done, unless the council had omitted some legal requirement essential to a valid assessment.
The paving company would be charged with notice of errors of that kind. But it is not charged with notice of .failure to comply with a voluntary agreement, made by members of the council not required by law. It is not necessary to hold that the company would lose the entire cost of paving in front of the property of the appellees in order to allow the company the protection which an innocent third party may claim. It is sufficient if it appears from the evidence that the compensation for which the company agreed to do the work would be materially reduced by a reassessment. If the contract price would not be materially reduced by the reassessment, then there is no good reason why a court of equity should interfere and cancel the certificates issued under the contract upon which the work was completed.
*683The case of City of Dallas v. Saenger (Tex. Civ. App.) 255 S. W. 652, referred to by counsel, involves an entirely different state of facts, and is not in conflict with the decision in this case.
The motion is overruled.