City of Spokane v. Browne
| Decision Date | 23 February 1894 |
| Parties | CITY OF SPOKANE v. BROWNE ET UX. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Spokane county; Jesse Arthur, Judge.
Suit by the city of Spokane against J. J. Browne and Anna, his wife to enforce a lien for street improvements. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
James Dawson, Corp. Counsel, and Jones, Belt & Quinn, for appellant.
R. B Blake and Frank T. Post, for respondents.
Respondents were owners of certain lands within a district created by the city council of the city of Spokane under its 1885 charter, for the purpose of levying an assessment to pay for certain street improvements. Said improvements were provided for and directed by an ordinance passed under said charter, and work was commenced thereon, but the improvements were not completed until after the adoption of the freeholders' charter on March 24, 1891. The ordinance directing the improvement, and under which the work was performed, provided for an assessment on the lands within the district according to value. After the adoption of the freeholders' charter, and the completion of the work this scheme of assessment was abandoned, and a levy per foot front on the lands abutting on the street to pay for such improvements was made. The respondents refused to pay such assessment on the lands owned by them abutting upon the street which was improved, and this suit was brought in equity to enforce a lien therefor against the same. A trial was had, and a judgment was rendered in favor of the respondents, and the city has appealed.
The respondents contend that the city had no right to change the method of assessing the expenses for such improvements from the plan according to valuation to the later one of per foot front, and that the city should have pursued the original plan under which the work was ordered. It is contended that at the time the work was directed under the previous charter improvements of this sort could not be made except upon petition of property holders, or by a given vote of the council; and that the improvements in question were instituted and occasioned by and in pursuance of a petition from such property holders, or some of them, owning lands in the vicinity. Furthermore, that a right of protest was given to such property owners, and the right to appear before the council to object to the proceedings at certain stages. It is contended that such property owners had a vested right to have the assessment levied according to the provisions of the ordinance under which the work was done. A number of cases have been cited by respondents as sustaining this contention. In City of Cincinnati v. Seasongood (Ohio) 21 N.E. 630, it was held that the city should be governed in making the assessment by the law in force at the time of the passage of the improvement ordinance. This was a suit brought by the city against a property owner to enforce an assessment. In Houston v. McKenna, 22 Cal. 550 which was an action by a contractor against a property owner, it was held that the law relating to assessments in force at the time the contract was entered into became a part of the contract, which neither the legislature nor the city had a right to change thereafter. In our opinion, however, the cases cited by the respondents fail to sustain their contention in this case. What was such vested right? Not that the assessment should be collected in any particular manner, so far as property owners were concerned, but rather that they should not be called upon to pay in excess of a certain sum. It does not appear in this case that the respondents have been in anywise injured, or that they have been called upon to pay in this action or by this levy any greater sum than they would have been required to pay in the original scheme of assessing according to valuation. Nor does it appear that they have been asked or required to make any earlier payment. In our opinion, in order for them to attack the assessment, it must appear that it has worked to their injury; otherwise they have no right to complain, for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial