Robertson Lumber Co. v. City of Grand Forks
| Citation | 147 N.W. 249,27 N.D. 556 |
| Decision Date | 08 May 1914 |
| Docket Number | 81912 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
Appeal from the district court of Grand Forks County, Templeton, J.
Suit to restrain the collection of a special assessment. Judgment for defendant.
Reversed.
Scott Rex, for appellant.
The ordinance attempting to create the sewer district involved here was and is fatally defective for want of proper description of the property intended to be included in the district; and such defect is jurisdictional. Collier Estate v. Western Paving & Supply Co. 180 Mo. 362, 79 S.W. 947; Copcutt v. Yonkers, 83 Hun, 178, 31 N.Y.S 659; 28 Cyc. 1122; Whitney v. Hudson, 69 Mich. 189 37 N.W. 184; German Sav. & L. Soc. v. Ramish, 138 Cal. 120, 69 P. 89, 70 P. 1067; Thomason v. Cuneo, 119 Cal. 25, 50 P. 846; Raymond v. Cleveland, 42 Ohio St. 527; Pickton v. Fargo, 10 N.D. 469, 88 N.W. 90.
All statutory requirements must be strictly complied with, and the attempted amendment of the ordinance subsequently did not materially alter its original form and substance. No notice was given the public. Property owners have a right to appear and be heard. Council cannot validate its former void proceedings by an act of ex post facto legislation. Bennett v. Emmetsburg, 138 Iowa 67, 115 N.W. 582; Comstock v. Eagle Grove, 133 Iowa 589, 111 N.W. 51; Mason v. Sioux Falls, 2 S.D. 640, 39 Am. St. Rep 802, 51 N.W. 770; Morse v. Omaha, 67 Neb. 426, 93 N.W. 734; McLauren v. Grand Forks, 6 Dak. 397, 43 N.W. 710.
There was no effort to ascertain comparative values of property and benefits, either as to property omitted or property included in levying the assessment to which objection is made. Hassan v. Rochester, 67 N.Y. 528; Simmons v Millville, 75 N.J.L. 177, 66 A. 895; State, Schlapfer, Prosecutor, v. Union, 53 N.J.L. 67, 20 A. 894; 25 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1199, and cases cited; 28 Cyc. 1162, and cases cited; Copcutt v. Yonkers, 83 Hun, 178, 31 N.Y.S. 659; Masters v. Portland, 24 Ore. 161, 33 P. 540; Fraser v. Mulany, 129 Wis. 377, 109 N.W. 139; State ex rel. Scotten v. Brill, 58 Minn. 152, 59 N.W. 989; Iowa Pipe & Tile Co. v. Callanan, 125 Iowa 358, 67 L.R.A. 408, 106 Am. St. Rep. 311, 101 N.W. 141, 3 Ann. Cas. 7; Cooley, Taxn. 3d ed. 1179.
In ascertaining benefits, the assessment commission must have knowledge of all material facts; and its determination, in order to be sustained, must be the result of a deliberate exercise of knowledge, discretion, and fairness. People ex rel. Keim v. Desmond, 186 N.Y. 232, 78 N.E. 857; State, Frevert, Prosecutor, v. Bayonne, 63 N.J.L. 202, 42 A. 773; 28 Cyc. 1156, 1161; Iowa Pipe & Tile Co. v. Callanan, 125 Iowa 358, 67 L.R.A. 408, 106 Am. St. Rep. 311, 101 N.W. 141, 3 Ann. Cas. 7; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269, 43 L.Ed. 443, 19 S.Ct. 187.
With physical facts before it to show to the contrary, this court will not consider as a fact, that which is on its face most plainly not a fact. Bailey v. Sioux Falls, 28 S.D. 118, 132 N.W. 703; Power v. Helena, 43 Mont. 336, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 39, 116 P. 415.
This assessment is not based on benefits, but on the number of openings that a property would need to get the benefit from the sewer--the area value. It evinces a want of knowledge, deliberation, and the exercise of a proper discretion, and adapts an arbitrary basis. 28 Cyc. 1168; State ex rel. Powell v. District Ct. 47 Minn. 406, 50 N.W. 476; State ex rel. Cunningham v. District Ct. 29 Minn. 62, 11 N.W. 133; State ex rel. Wheeler v. District Ct. 80 Minn. 293, 83 N.W. 183; Hayes v. Douglas County, 92 Wis. 429, 31 L.R.A. 213, 53 Am. St. Rep. 926, 65 N.W. 482; Wright v. Forrestal, 65 Wis. 341, 27 N.W. 52; Watkins v. Zwietusch, 47 Wis. 513, 3 N.W. 35; People ex rel. Keim v. Desmond, 186 N.Y. 232, 78 N.E. 857; State, Frevert, Prosecutor, v. Bayonne, 63 N.J.L. 202, 42 A. 773; Pickton v. Fargo, 10 N.D. 469, 88 N.W. 90; Johnson v. Milwaukee, 40 Wis. 315; Liebermann v. Milwaukee, 89 Wis. 336, 61 N.W. 1112; Auditor General v. O'Neill, 143 Mich. 343, 106 N.W. 895; Lawrence v. Grand Rapids, 166 Mich. 134, 131 N.W. 581; Auditor General v. Bishop, 161 Mich. 117, 125 N.W. 715; Loewenbach v. Milwaukee, 139 Wis. 49, 119 N.W. 888; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Janesville, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1160, subdiv. IX. of case note and cases cited; Cooley, Taxn. 3d ed. 1254; Kirst v. Street Improv. Dist. 86 Ark. 1, 109 S.W. 526; Essen v. Cape May, 77 N.J.L. 361, 72 A. 49; Hanscom v. Omaha, 11 Neb. 37, 7 N.W. 739.
J. B. Wineman, for respondents.
The city council had jurisdiction to levy the special assessment in question. The plaintiff at no time appeared before the city council or special assessment committee to offer objections, and it should not now be heard to complain. Poirier Mfg. Co. v. Kitts, 18 N.D. 557, 120 N.W. 558; McLain v. Nurnberg, 16 N.D. 144, 112 N.W. 243; VanGordon v. Goldamer, 16 N.D. 323, 113 N.W. 609.
The boundaries of the assessment district as established by the city council show a definite description of the district, including plaintiff's property. 2 Page & J. Taxn. by Assessment, § 551; Hamilton, Special Assessment, § 606; Thomason v. Cuneo, 119 Cal. 25, 50 P. 846; People ex rel. Price v. Wiemers, 225 Ill. 17, 80 N.E. 46; Rogers v. Salem, 61 Ore. 321, 122 P. 312; West Berkeley Land Co. v. Berkeley, 164 Cal. 406, 129 P. 281; Carlson v. South Omaha, 91 Neb. 215, 135 N.W. 1047.
The city council has the power to amend an ordinance and place it on its second reading and final passage by one and the same vote, and duly record it in its proceedings. Further, the amended ordinance was adopted and acted upon. 2 Page & J. Taxn. by Assessment, § 845; St. Louis v. Brown, 155 Mo. 545, 56 S.W. 298.
This action is not predicated on the ground of fraud, and we contend that the statute not having provided for an appeal or a review by any other body, court, or tribunal, the action of the council is final, unless attacked for fraud. State ex rel. Dorgan v. Fisk, 15 N.D. 219, 107 N.W. 191; Freeman v. Trimble, 21 N.D. 1, 129 N.W. 83; Brown v. Saginaw, 107 Mich. 643, 65 N.W. 602; Soller v. Brown Twp. Bd. 67 Mich. 422, 34 N.W. 888; Northern P. R. Co. v. Seattle, 46 Wash. 674, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 121, 123 Am. St. Rep. 955, 91 P. 245; Job v. Alton, 189 Ill. 256, 82 Am. St. Rep. 452, 59 N.E. 622; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U.S. 345, 31 L.Ed. 763, 8 S.Ct. 921; Duncan v. Ramish, 142 Cal. 686, 76 P. 663; Smith v. Worcester, 182 Mass. 232, 59 L.R.A. 728, 65 N.E. 40; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Joliet, 153 Ill. 649, 39 N.E. 1077; Chicago & N.W. R. Co. v. Elmhurst, 165 Ill. 148, 46 N.E. 437; People ex rel. Scott v. Pitt, 169 N.Y. 521, 58 L.R.A. 372, 62 N.E. 662; Illinois C. R. Co. v. People, 170 Ill. 224, 48 N.E. 215; French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. 181 U.S. 338, 45 L.Ed. 887, 21 S.Ct. 625; 2 Page & J. Taxn. by Assessment, 927; McQuillin, Mun. Ord. 820; Williams v. Eggleston, 170 U.S. 304, 42 L.Ed. 1047, 18 S.Ct. 617; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Decatur, 147 U.S. 190, 37 L.Ed. 132, 13 S.Ct. 293; Hager v. Reclamation Dist. 111 U.S. 701, 28 L.Ed. 569, 4 S.Ct. 663; Parsons v. District of Columbia, 170 U.S. 45, 42 L.Ed. 943, 18 S.Ct. 521; Hutcheson v. Storrie, Tex. Civ. App. , 48 S.W. 788.
The plaintiff is guilty of gross laches by its conduct in not making known to defendant the alleged defects or irregularities of which it complained, until the assessment had been confirmed by the city council. The only objections made by plaintiff were that the assessments were in excess of the benefits derived, and therefore unjust and unfair, and this not until nearly one year after the improvements were in. Plaintiff is estopped to make objections on other grounds. Poirier Mfg. Co. v. Kitts, 18 N.D. 557, 120 N.W. 558; 4 Dill. Mun. Corp. 5th ed. 2601-2603; State Vanatta, Prosecutor, v. Morristown, 34 N.J.L. 445; State, Ropes, Prosecutor, v. Essex Public Road Bd. 37 N.J.L. 335; State, Bogart, Prosecutor, v. Passaic, 38 N.J.L. 57; State, Ryerson, Prosecutor, v. Passaic, 38 N.J.L. 171; State, Youngster, Prosecutor, v. Paterson, 40 N.J.L. 244; State, Bowne, Prosecutor, v. Logan, 43 N.J.L. 421; State, Provident Inst. for Sav., Prosecutors, v. Jersey City, 52 N.J.L. 490, 19 A. 1096; State, Meday, Prosecutor, v. Rutherford, 52 N.J.L. 499, 19 A. 972; State, Simmons, Prosecutor, v. Passaic, 55 N.J.L. 485, 27 A. 909; State, Van Wagoner, Prosecutor, v. Paterson, 67 N.J.L. 455, 51 A. 922; Rosell v. Neptune City, 68 N.J.L. 509, 53 A. 199; Doughten v. Camden, 71 N.J.L. 426, 59 A. 16; Sears v. Atlantic City, 72 N.J.L. 435, 60 A. 1093; Tusting v. Asbury Bank, 73 N.J.L. 102, 62 A. 183; Durrell v. Woodbury, 74 N.J.L. 206, 65 A. 198, 75 N.J.L. 939, 70 A. 1100; State, Zabriskie, Prosecutor, v. Hudson, 29 N.J.L. 115; State, Charlier, Prosecutor, v. Woodruff, 36 N.J.L. 204; Hoboken Land & Improv. Co. v. Hoboken, 36 N.J.L. 540; State v. Trenton, 36 N.J.L. 499; Stetler v. East Rutherford, 65 N.J.L. 528, 47 A. 489; Borton v. Camden, 65 N.J.L. 511, 47 A. 436; Spalding v. Denver, 33 Colo. 172, 80 P. 127; Weaver v. Chickasha, 36 Okla. 226, 128 P. 305; Rogers v. Salem, 61 Ore. 321, 122 P. 308; Evansville v. Pfisterer, 34 Ind. 36, 7 Am. Rep. 214; Johnson v. Allen, 62 Ind. 57; Taber v. Ferguson, 109 Ind. 227, 9 N.E. 723; Ross v. Stackhouse, 114 Ind. 200, 16 N.E. 501; Jenkins v. Stetler, 118 Ind. 275, 20 N.E. 788; McCoy v. Able, 131 Ind. 417, 30 N.E. 528, 31 N.E. 453; Byram v. Detroit, 50 Mich. 56, 12 N.W. 912, 14 N.W. 698; Lundbrom v. Manistee, 93 Mich. 170, 53 N.W. 161; Goodwillie v. Detroit, 103 Mich. 283, 61 N.W. 526; Atwell v. Barnes, 109 Mich. 10, 66 N.W. 583; Fitzhugh v. Bay City, 109 Mich. 581, 67 N.W. 904; Moore v. McIntyre, 110 Mich. 237, 68 N.W. 130; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial