Northern Pacific Railway Company, a Corp. v. Richland County, a Municipal Corporation

• Decision Date: 29 June 1914
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

148 N.W. 545

28 N.D. 172

NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation, v. RICHLAND COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation

Supreme Court of North Dakota

June 29, 1914

Appeal from the District Court of Richland County, Allen, J.

Action to determine adverse claims in and to a railroad right of way. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Watson & Young, Purcell & Divet, for plaintiff-appellant.

The pretended lien is void in that no legal assessment was ever made. Such proceedings are purely statutory, and the statute must be strictly followed in all material respects. Hamilton Special Assessments, p. 540; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269, 291, 43 L.Ed. 443, 452, 19 Sup. St. Rep. 187; Bidwell v. Huff, 103 F. 362; Lee v. Ruggles, 62 Ill 427.

An assessment for a street improvement where the amount is in figures only, without the dollar mark or other mark to indicate value, is void. McClellan v. District of Columbia, 7 Mackey, 94; Brown v. Joliet, 22 Ill. 123; Balfe v. Johnson, 40 Ind. 235; Payne v South Springfield, 161 Ill. 285, 44 N.E. 105.

Special assessments for local improvements cannot be made against property unless specifically provided by statute. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Ottumwa, 112 Iowa 300 51 L.R.A. 763, 83 N.W. 1074; Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co v. Grand Rapids, 106 Mich. 13, 28 L.R.A. 793, 58 Am. St. Rep. 466, 63 N.W. 1008; Southern California R. Co. v. Workman, 146 Cal. 80, 79 P. 586, 82 P. 79, 2 Ann. Cas. 583; Dean v. Paterson, 67 N.J.L. 199, 50 A. 620; Allegheny City v. Western Pennsylvania R. Co. 138 Pa. 375, 21 A. 763; New York & N.H. R. Co. v. New Haven, 42 Conn. 279, 19 Am. Rep. 534; State ex rel. Milwaukee Street R. Co. v. Anderson, 90 Wis. 550, 63 N.W. 747; Erie v. A Piece of Land, 175 Pa. 523, 34 A. 808.

There is no authority for making an assessment upon a right of way, or for selling the same. Southern California R. Co. v. Workman, 146 Cal. 80, 79 P. 586, 82 P. 79, 2 Ann. Cas. 583; Boehme v. Monroe, 106 Mich. 401, 64 N.W. 206; McCutcheon v. Pacific R. Co. 72 Mo.App. 271; Philadelphia v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. 33 Pa. 41; Bridgeport v. New York & N.H. R. Co. 36 Conn. 255, 4 Am. Rep. 63; Mt. Pleasant v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 138 Pa. 365, 11 L.R.A. 520, 20 A. 1052.

The basis of the right to make such a special assessment is the enhancement in the value of the property. Hamilton, Special Assessments, pp. 240, 449, 450; Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Chicago, 204 Ill. 363, 68 N.E. 519; Jones v. Chicago, 206 Ill. 374, 69 N.E. 64; Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Chicago, 207 Ill. 607, 69 N.E. 803; Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Chicago, 207 Ill. 544, 69 N.E. 849; Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Chicago, 215 Ill. 410, 74 N.E. 449; Kankakee Stone & Lime Co. v. Kankakee, 128 Ill. 173, 20 N.E. 670; Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Chicago, 204 Ill. 363, 68 N.E. 519; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Ottumwa, 112 Iowa 300, 51 L.R.A. 763, 83 N.W. 1074; Boston v. Boston & A. R. Co. 170 Mass. 95, 49 N.E. 95; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Grand Rapids, 102 Mich. 374, 29 L.R.A. 195, 60 N.W. 767; Allegheny City v. Western Pennsylvania R. Co. 138 Pa. 375, 21 A. 763; Farmers' Loan & T. Co. v. Ansonia, 61 Conn. 76, 23 A. 706; Chicago & N.W. R. Co. v. People, 120 Ill. 107, 11 N.E. 418; Philadelphia v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. 33 Pa. 41; Bridgeport v. New York & N.H. R. Co. 36 Conn. 255, 4 Am. Rep. 63; Re Public Park Comrs. 47 Hun, 302; Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. v. Grand Rapids, 106 Mich. 13, 28 L.R.A. 793, 58 Am. St. Rep. 466, 63 N.W. 1007; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Milwaukee, 89 Wis. 506, 28 L.R.A. 249, 62 N.W. 417; Mt. Pleasant v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 138 Pa. 365, 11 L. R. A. 520, 20 A. 1052; 2 Elliott, Railroads, pp. 198, 199, notes 26, 28, 63 N.W. 1007; South Park. Comrs. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 107 Ill. 105.

Railroad property cannot be sold for street improvements. A railroad right of way cannot be benefited by the opening of a street across it so as to subject it to an assessment for such improvements. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. v. Grand Rapids, 106 Mich. 13, 28 L.R.A. 793, 58 Am. St. Rep. 466, 63 N.W. 1008; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Ottumwa, 112 Iowa 300, 51 L.R.A. 763, 83 N.W. 1074; Mt. Pleasant v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 138 Pa. 365, 11 L.R.A. 520, 20 A. 1052; Hammett v. Philadelphia, 65 Pa. 150, 3 Am. Rep. 615; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Milwaukee, 89 Wis. 506, 28 L.R.A. 249, 62 N.W. 417; Seattle v. Seattle Electric Co. 15 L.R.A.(N.S.) 487, note; South Park Comrs. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 107 Ill. 105; O'Reilley v. Kingston, 114 N.Y. 439, 21 N.E. 1004; Indianapolis & V. R. Co. v. Capital Paving & Constr. Co. 24 Ind.App. 114, 54 N.E. 1076; Heman Constr. Co. v. Wabash R. Co. 12 L.R.A.(N.S.) 114 note; Abbott, Mun. Corp. pp. 811, 812; McVerry v. Boyd, 89 Cal. 304, 26 P. 885; Schmidt v. Market Street & W. G. R. Co. 90 Cal. 37, 27 P. 61; New York & N.H. R. Co. v. New Haven, 42 Conn. 279, 19 Am. Rep. 534; Boston v. Boston & A. R. Co. 170 Mass. 95, 49 N.E. 95; Auditor General v. Duluth, S. S. & A. R. Co. 116 Mich. 122, 74 N.W. 505; First Div. St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. St. Paul, 21 Minn. 526; St. Paul v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. 23 Minn. 469; State ex rel. Minnesota Transfer R. Co. v. District Ct. 68 Minn. 242, 71 N.W. 27; State, Morris & E. R. Co. Prosecutors, v. Jersey City, 36 N.J.L. 56; Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. Watertown, 1 S.D. 46, 44 N.W. 1072; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Milwaukee, 89 Wis. 506, 28 L.R.A. 249, 62 N.W. 417; Junction R. Co. v. Philadelphia, 88 Pa. 424; Erie v. A. Piece of Land, 175 Pa. 523, 34 A. 808; Columbia & P. S. R. Co. v. Chilberg, 6 Wash. 612, 34 P. 163; Oshkosh City R. Co. v. Winnebago County, 89 Wis. 435, 61 N.W. 1107; Cooley, Taxn. pp. 456, 457; Southern California R. Co. v. Workman, 146 Cal. 80, 79 P. 588, 82 P. 79, 2 Ann. Cas. 583; Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. State, 122 Ind. 443, 24 N.E. 350; Philadelphia v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. 33 Pa. 41; Philadelphia v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 177 Pa. 292, 34 L.R.A. 564, 35 A. 610; Junction R. Co. v. Philadelphia, 88 Pa. 428.

Freight house, right of way, and tracks of a railroad company cannot be sold as a mode of collecting an assessment for local improvements. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Milwaukee, 89 Wis. 506, 28 L.R.A. 249, 62 N.W. 417; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Grand Rapids, 102 Mich. 374, 29 L.R.A. 195, 60 N.W. 767; Junction R. Co. v. Philadelphia, 88 Pa. 424; State, New Jersey R. & Transp. Co. Prosecutor, v. Elizabeth, 37 N.J.L. 331; New York & H. R. Co. v. Morrisania, 7 Hun, 652; Bloomington v. Chicago & A. R. Co. 134 Ill. 451, 26 N.E. 366; Bridgeport v. New York & N.H. R. Co. 36 Conn. 255, 4 Am. Rep. 63; South Park Comrs. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 107 Ill. 105; New York & N.H. R. Co. v. New Haven, 42 Conn. 279, 19 Am. Rep. 534; Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. v. Grand Rapids, 106 Mich. 13, 28 L.R.A. 793, 58 Am. St. Rep. 466, 63 N.W. 1008; East Alabama R. Co. v. Doe, 114 U.S. 350, 351, 29 L.Ed. 139, 140, 5 S.Ct. 869; Gue v. Tide Water Canal Co. 24 How. 257, 16 L.Ed. 635; People ex rel. Davidson v. Gilon, 126 N.Y. 147, 27 N.E. 282; Ludlow v. Cincinnati Southern R. Co. 78 Ky. 357; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Ottumwa, 112 Iowa 300, 51 L.R.A. 763, 83 N.W. 1074; Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Lindquist, 119 Iowa 144, 93 N.W. 104; Yellow River Improv. Co. v. Wood County, 81 Wis. 554, 17 L.R.A. 92, 51 N.W. 1006.

A railroad is an entirety, and cannot be cut up and sold for taxes, in parcels. 2 Rorer, Railways, 1499, § 14; Detroit v. Detroit City R. Co. 76 Mich. 421, 43 N.W. 447; Hackley v. Mack, 60 Mich. 591, 27 N.W. 871; Applegate v. Ernst, 3 Bush, 648, 96 Am. Dec. 272; Georgia v. Atlantic & G. R. Co. 3 Woods, 434, F. Cas. No. 5,351; Porter v. Rockford, R. I. & St. L. R. Co. 76 Ill. 561; Big Rapids v. Mecosta County, 99 Mich. 351, 58 N.W. 358; Worcester County v. Worcester, 116 Mass. 193, 17 Am. Rep. 159; Polk County Sav. Bank v. State, 69 Iowa 29, 28 N.W. 416; New York & H. R. Co. v. Morrisania, 7 Hun, 652; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Milwaukee, 89 Wis. 506, 28 L.R.A. 249, 62 N.W. 417; Dunn v. North Missouri R. Co. 24 Mo. 493; McPheeters v. Merimac Bridge Co. 28 Mo. 467; Schulenburg v. Memphis, C. & N.W. R. Co. 67 Mo. 442; St. Louis Bridge & Constr. Co. v. Memphis, C. & N.W. R. Co. 72 Mo. 664; Knapp v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co. 74 Mo. 378; Indianapolis & C. Gravel Road Co. v. State, 105 Ind. 37, 4 N.E. 319; East Alabama R. Co. v. Doe, 114 U.S. 341, 29 L.Ed. 137, 5 S.Ct. 869; Dobbins v. Colorado & S. R. Co. 19 Colo.App. 257, 75 P. 157; Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Lindquist, 119 Iowa 144, 93 N.W. 104; Heman Constr. Co. v. Wabash R. Co. 12 L.R.A.(N.S.) p. 116, note.

The landowner is never estopped to show jurisdictional defects. Hamilton, Special Assessments, pp. 727, 728.

C. J. Kachelhoffer, for respondent. (Gustav Schuler, W. S. Lauder, John L. Koeppler, of counsel.)

This suit is not brought for the purpose of impeaching the assessment. The attack upon the assessment is collateral. Hackney v. Elliott, 23 N.D. 373, 137 N.W. 433; Erickson v. Cass County, 11 N.D. 494, 92 N.W. 841; State ex rel. Dorgan v. Fisk, 15 N.D. 219, 107 N.W. 191; McNamee v. Tacoma, 24 Wash. 591, 64 P. 791; Jackson v. Smith, 120 Ind. 520, 22 N.E. 431.

The assessment is valid in all respects. Hackney v. Elliott, 23 N.D. 390, 137 N.W. 433; First Nat. Bank v. St. Joseph, 46 Mich. 526, 9 N.W. 839; Ensign v. Barse, 107 N.Y. 338, 14 N.E. 400, 15 N.E. 401; 37 Cyc. 1067.

This is a collateral attack, and, if the drain commissioners had jurisdiction to make the assessment, then their determination that appellant's right of way was benefited, cannot be questioned here. Erickson v. Cass County, 11 N.D 507, 92 N.W. 841; Illinois C. R. Co. v. East Lake Fork Special Drainage Dist. 129 Ill. 417, 21 N.E. 925; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Cluggish, 143 Ind....