Ball v. City of Tacoma

• Decision Date: 18 October 1894
• Citation: 38 P. 133,9 Wash. 592
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: BALL v. CITY OF TACOMA.

38 P. 133

9 Wash. 592

BALL v. CITY OF TACOMA.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 18, 1894

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; John C. Stallcup, Judge.

Action by Hazen O. Ball against the city of Tacoma to recover damages for the taking of certain lands for street purposes and for damages accruing to the remainder of the tract by reason of the manner of grading the street. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Hudson & Holt, for appellant.

F. H Murray and S. A. Crandall, for respondent.

STILES J.

Appellant commenced this action to recover against respondent damages for the taking of certain lands for the purposes of a street and for damages accruing to the remainder of the tract by reason of the manner of grading the street, which resulted in leaving his lot several feet above the level of the sidewalk. The case developed the following facts: Appellant was the owner of a small tract of unplatted land, about one-sixth of an acre in extent, measuring 55 by 132 feet. The tract lay about midway between Yakima and Tacoma avenues which were some 700 feet apart. Carr street, 100 feet in width, was an existing street as far as the north side of Yakima avenue, and appellant's lot lay in such a position that the extension of Carr street southward to Tacoma avenue would include 43 feet off the west end of appellant's lot. Under these circumstances, appellant joined with other owners of similar tracts in a petition to the city council asking that land 100 feet in width between Yakima and Tacoma avenues, which would be an extension of Carr street, be improved at the expense of the owners of property fronting upon the same; such improvements to consist of grading to the established grade, and building sidewalks. The petition was granted and the improvement made, and appellant paid his share of the cost thereof. He now seeks to recover for the portion of his land occupied by the improvement, and for damages to the remainder of the tract. Under instructions given by the court that the jury might consider the petition for the improvement as evidence tending to show a dedication, as a result of which plaintiff would be entitled to nothing for the land taken, and that, by reason of the request made to the city to make the improvement, appellant could have nothing by way of damages for cutting down the street in front of the remainder of his tract, the jury found for the respondent. ...