Bellingham Bay Co v. City of New Whatcom
Citation | 19 S.Ct. 205,172 U.S. 314,43 L.Ed. 460 |
Decision Date | 03 January 1899 |
Docket Number | No. 96,96 |
Parties | BELLINGHAM BAY & B. C. R. CO. v. CITY OF NEW WHATCOM |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Prior to February 16, 1891, there were in the state of Washington two cities, known as 'Whatcom' and 'New Whatcom.' On that date they were consolidated in conformity with the general laws of the state, the consolidated city taking the title of the 'City of New Whatcom.' In July, 1890, and prior to the consolidation, New Whatcom ordered the improvement of Elk street, between Elk street east and North street. The contract therefor was let in August, 1890. The contract was completed and the improvement accepted by the city, and in October, 1890, an assessment was levied upon the abutting property. After the consolidation, the present city of New Whatcom commenced several suits in the superior court of Whatcom county against various defendants owning lots abutting on the improvement, and sought to obtain decrees foreclosing the liens created by the assessment. On January 13, 1894, the superior court entered decrees annulling the assessment, and these decrees were affirmed by the supreme court of the state on February 14, 1895. The ground of the decision was, as stated by the trial court in its conclusions of law, 'that said assessments were not made or apportioned in accordance with the benefits received by the property, but were made upon an arbitrary rule, irrespective of the benefits.' On March 9, 1893, the legislature passed a general act providing for the reassessment of the cost of local improvements in case the original assessment shall have been or may be directly or indirectly set aside, annulled, or declared void by any court. Laws Wash. 1893, p. 226.
Sections 4, 5, and 8 bear upon the matter of notice, and are as follows:
On March 18, 1895, the city council passed an ordinance prescribing the mode of procedure for collecting the cost of a local reassessment upon the property benefited thereby. On June 10, 1895, it ordered a new assessment upon the blocks, lots, and parcels of land benefited by the improvement on Elk street, hereinbefore described, and directed the various officers of the city to take the steps required by the general ordinance of March 18th. These steps were all taken in conformity to such ordinance, and on August 7, 1895, a further ordinance was passed, reciting what had been done, approving it, and confirming the reassessment.
The recital in that ordinance in respect to notice was as follows:
'Whereas, said city council did on the 8th day of July, 1895, order said assessment roll filed in the office of the city clerk, and fixed Monday, July 22d, 1895, at 7:30 p. m., as a time at which they would hear, consider and determine any and all objections to the regularity of the proceedings in making such assessments, or to the amount to be assessed upon any block, lot or tract of land for said improvements; and
'Whereas, notice of such hearing was duly published in the official paper of the city of New Whatcom, to wit, in the Daily Reveille, in three consecutive issues thereof, the same being the issues of July 9th, 10th and 11th, 1895.'
The Bellingham Bay & British Columbia Railroad Company was a private corporation, organized under the laws of the state of California, but authorized to do business in the state of Washington, and having its principal office in the city of New Whatcom. It was the owner of certain property abutting upon the Elk street improvement, and which, by the proceedings of the city council, was held benefited by such improvement, and charged with a portion of the cost. Failing to pay this charge, the city of New Whatcom instituted suit in the superior court of Whatcom county to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People ex rel. State Bd. of Equalization v. Pitcher
... ... Pitcher, Commissioner of Finance and Ex Officio Assessor of ... City and County of Denver. Alternative writ made absolute ... [138 P. 510] ... [56 ... 701, 4 S.Ct. 663, 28 L.Ed. 569; Davidson ... v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 24 L.Ed. 616; Bellingham Co. v ... New Whatcom, 172 U.S. 314, 19 S.Ct. 205, 43 L.Ed. 460 ... That we ... have ... ...
-
Inland Lumber & Timber Co. v. Thompson
... ... L. Co. v ... Minnesota, 159 U.S. 526, 16 S.Ct. 83, 40 L.Ed. 247; ... Bellingham Bay Co. v. New Whatcom, 172 U.S. 315, 19 ... S.Ct. 205, 43 L.Ed. 460; Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N.Y ... 681; Kirkwood v ... Ford, 34 Or. 552, 56 P. 411; Albany Mut. Bldg. Assn ... v. City of Laramie, 10 Wyo. 54, 65 P. 1011; Aggers ... v. People, 20 Colo. 348, 38 P. 386; United ... ...
-
Yakus v. United States Rottenberg v. Same
...relief as a prerequisite to proceeding in the courts have been held to be sufficient, see, e.g., Bellingham Bay, etc., Co. v. City of New Whatcom, 172 U.S. 314, 19 S.Ct. 205, 43 L.Ed. 460, (10 days); Campbell v. City of Olney, 262 U.S. 352, 43 S.Ct. 559, 67 L.Ed. 1021 (20 days); Wick v. Che......
-
Mcdaniel v. Mcelvy
... ... 1157; Irwin v. Wright, 258 U.S. 219, ... 42 S.Ct. 293, 66 L.Ed. 573; U.S. v. City of New Brunswick ... (D. C.) 1 F. (2d) 741; Mundee v. Freeman, 23 ... Fla. 529, 3 So. 153 ... Hunter, 204 U.S. 241, 27 S.Ct. 261, 51 L.Ed. 461 ... See, ... also, Bellingham, etc., R. Co. v. City of New ... Whatcom, 172 U.S. 314, 19 S.Ct. 205, 43 L.Ed. 460, and ... ...