Grosshoff v. City of Spokane

• Decision Date: 03 June 1913
• Citation: 132 P. 643,73 Wash. 681
• Parties: GROSSHOFF et ux. v. CITY OF SPOKANE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

132 P. 643

73 Wash. 681

GROSSHOFF et ux. v. CITY OF SPOKANE.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 3, 1913

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Wm. Huneke Judge.

Action by George Grosshoff and wife against the City of Spokane. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions to enter judgment for defendant.

H. M Stephens and Bruce Blake, both of Spokane, for appellant.

Morrill Chester & Skuse, of Spokane, for respondents.

FULLERTON, J.

The city of Spokane by ordinance changed the grade of one of its streets, known as 'Main avenue,' and directed its improvement on the newly established grade, according to certain defined plans and specifications. A contract was let for the work, and the work subsequently completed to the satisfaction of the city. After the completion of the work the respondents, who own property abutting upon the improved street, filed a claim with the city council for damages claimed by them to have been suffered by their property because of the grading of the street. The city rejected the claim, whereupon they began the present action in the superior court of Spokane county to recover thereon. After the commencement of the action, the city council passed an ordinance directing that condemnation proceedings be begun against all of the property holders along the improved street for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of damages suffered by the property holders, arising from the improvement, and to establish a fund for the payment of such damages. A condemnation action was thereupon begun, and the respondents made parties thereto. They appeared in the action personally and by counsel and gave evidence before the jury called to assess the damages, as to their respective claims. The jury found that they had suffered no damages in excess of benefits conferred by the improvement of the street, and a judgment was entered accordingly. Subsequently the respondents continued the prosecution of the present action, which had been suffered to remain quiescent pending the trial of the condemnation proceedings. The city defended the action, and as one defense thereto set up the proceedings and judgment in the condemnation action as res judicata of the pending action. The court, however, refused to recognize the judgment in the condemnation proceeding as a bar to the action, but permitted the respondents to show the work had been...