Rabel v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 23 November 1906
• Citation: 87 P. 520,44 Wash. 482
• Parties: RABEL et al. v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

87 P. 520

44 Wash. 482

RABEL et al. v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 23, 1906

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Arthur E. Griffin, Judge.

Action by Christian Rabel and others against city of Seattle and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Guie &amp Guie, for appellants.

Scott Calhoun and O. B. Thorgrimson, for respondents.

ROOT J.

Appellants as lessees from the state of Washington, filed their complaint in equity, asking for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from enforcing an assessment levied or attempted to be levied, by the city of Seattle for municipal improvements alleged to be specially beneficial to the property leased by appellants, and to have said assessment stricken from the rolls. From a judgment in favor of respendents, this appeal is prosecuted.

On the 3d of October, 1904, the state leased certain state lands to one George James, who thereafter sold and transferred said lease and leasehold interest to appellants. The city council of Seattle, by an ordinance passed November 23d and approved November 24, 1903, provided for the improvement of Utah street, and for the payment therefor by the mode of 'immediate payment,' under the provisions of a certain city ordinance. Under these proceedings an assessment was made, or sought to be made, upon the lots covered by appellants' lease. They contend that their leasehold interest in said lots is not subject to this tax or to any assessment on account of local improvements. The main question sought to be determined by the parties to this action is as to whether a leasehold interest in state lands can be assessed to pay for public improvements affording special benefits to the property leased or to the leasehold interest in said property. Where local improvements are legally proposed by a municipality, subsequent to the bidding of a prospective leaseholder for the property covered by his lease, and such improvements, when made, constitute a special benefit to such leasehold interest, we believe that said interest can be subjected to an assessment to pay for the special benefits thus accruing. Before delivering a lease all of the property in a given parcel of real estate belongs to the state. Hence, at such time it is nonassessable for any purpose unless clearly and expressly made so by Constitution or statute. When, however, any private individual or corporation acquires a leasehold of said property for a given period, the state ceases to be the owner of...