Atchison, T. & SF Ry. Co. v. City of San Diego

• Decision Date: 27 August 1929
• Citation: 34 F.2d 293
• Parties: ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Panama Canal Zone

34 F.2d 293 (1929)

ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al.

District Court, S. D. California, Central Division.

August 27, 1929.

Robert Brennan, E. T. Lucey, and M. W. Reed, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for complainant.

M. W. Conkling, City Atty., and C. L. Byers, Asst. City Atty., both of San Diego, Cal., for defendants.

JAMES, District Judge.

This suit is brought to secure, as the main relief, an injunction to prevent the city of San Diego and its officers from enforcing an assessment charge made against the depot property of complainant railway company. The assessment was levied to cover in part the cost of opening C street in said city, through the length of one block. The total cost of the work was determined to be $54,565.83. Of this sum, $12,607.12 was made a charge against the depot property. The railway company protested the assessment as being unjust and arbitrary, claiming that its property would receive no benefit from the opening of the street. The city council overruled the protest and this action was commenced. The improvement designed to be made was under a district assessment plan.

The Street Improvement Act of the State of California, under which, it is asserted, the city proceeded (sections 4, 5, p. 70, Stats. of Cal. 1889, and amendatory acts Deering's Gen. Laws 1923, Act 8195), provides for the hearing of objections to the proposed work and to the assessments made, and declares that the decision of the city council allowing or disallowing protests "shall be final and conclusive" (section 5). It is admitted by defendants that the finality which attends the determination of the city council, when it acts upon the protest of a property owner, assumes cases where that body acts within a fair and reasonable discretion upon the matter before it (which is presumed, prima facie), but that the protestant is not concluded if he is able to show that no fair rule of uniformity was adopted in making the assessment (Schaffer v. Smith, 169 Cal. 764, 147 P. 976), or that the assessment was made without regard to benefits to accrue to the property taxed (Spring Street Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 170 Cal. 24, 148 P. 217, L. R. A. 1918E, 197).

The question to be answered in such cases is: Did the municipal body use the judicial judgment which the law requires of it, and determine the amount of the assessments upon the basis of benefits to property assessed? Where it is plain that the council, upon a showing of valid supporting facts, has ruled that benefits will accrue to the property assessed to pay the cost of the work, that determination may not be overthrown by witnesses produced in court who testify that the assessment is for too large an amount. The law has established the agencies which shall settle the question of the amount of damages and benefits: First, the commissioners appointed for that purpose; second, the municipal council with full power to revise, correct, and annul the commissioners' report. Counsel for defendants have cited a number of California decisions on the question, all showing the limited power which the courts have in these matters. There is no real difference between respective counsel as to the law.

An assessment of the kind here to be considered will be deemed arbitrary and illegal, if, upon examination of the record of proceedings had, together with other evidence offered to show fully plain conditions which the assessing officers are presumed to have had before them, the conclusion is inescapable that the property assessed could not be benefited by the contemplated work, or that, if benefited, the benefit necessarily would be trivial or inconsequential. Complainant maintains that in the situation its property is, and considering the limited use to which it can be put, no benefit whatsoever would accrue to it — rather that a damage would be suffered.

The depot property as occupied faces toward the south and east, with full access at its southerly line to Broadway, the main east and west street leading from the principal business center of San Diego to the bay and steamer piers, to which the depot itself is in close proximity. The depot building has a frontage of 225 feet facing Broadway....