City of New Whatcom v. Bellingham Bay Imp. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 December 1894
• Citation: 38 P. 1024,10 Wash. 378
• Parties: CITY OF NEW WHATCOM v. BELLINGHAM BAY IMP. CO. [1]
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

38 P. 1024

10 Wash. 378

CITY OF NEW WHATCOM v. BELLINGHAM BAY IMP. CO. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Washington

December 26, 1894

Appeal from superior court, Whatcom county; John R. Winn, Judge.

Action by the city of New Whatcom against the Bellingham Bay Improvement Company to foreclose a lien for a street assessment. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

C. W. Dorr, for appellant.

Cade & Freeman and John R. Crites, for respondent.

STILES, J.

This case was commenced for the foreclosure of a street-assessment lien for the improvement of Holly street from Forrest to Harrison. It was in nearly all of its facts exactly like City of New Whatcom v. Improvement Co. (Wash.) 38 P. 163; but, having been the first case of that series tried, there was a judgment for the city. The method of assessing cost of improvement in front of each lot prevailed in this instance, as well as the others, and that fact must cause a reversal.

An appeal is made here to sustain the judgment because the agents of the appellant stood by and saw the work being done, and did not interfere by injunction. Where jurisdiction has been obtained to do such work by local assessments, acquiescence on the part of the abutting owner may be invoked against a claim of mere irregularities on his part, but no such principle can be applied when the assessment is one not authorized by law, as in this case. Vancouver v. Wintler, 8 Wash. 378, 36 P. 378, 685; Howell v. Tacoma, 3 Wash. 711, 29 P. 447; Welty, Assessm. § 307; State v. District Court, 29 Minn. 63, 11 N.W. 133. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for dismissal.

DUNBAR, C.J., and SCOTT, J., concur.

---------

Notes:

^[1] Rehearing denied.

---------