Smith v. City of Centralia

Decision Date06 November 1909
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesSMITH et al. v. CITY OF CENTRALIA.

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County; A. E. Rice Judge.

Action by C. Smith and another against the City of Centralia. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

B. H Rhodes, Geo. Dysart, and C. D. Cunningham, for appellant.

Reynolds & Stewart, for respondents.

FULLERTON J.

The record discloses that on September 8, 1908, certain persons owning property in the city of Centralia petitioned the city council of that city to vacate that part of Tower avenue, a street therein, fronting on block 5 of Hanson's First addition to Centralia for a width of 6 feet. Pursuant thereto, the city council passed an ordinance purporting to vacate, not only that part of the street requested, but also a part of the street 6 feet in which fronting on block 1, lying immediately north of block 5, for a distance of nearly 550 feet. It was not recited in the petition for vacation that the portion of the street sought to be vacated, or the street itself, was not used by the public or the adjoining property holders, nor did it recite that any public necessity required the vacation of the street. Nor did the ordinance purporting to vacate the street make any such recitals, nor was any provision made therein or otherwise, for compensating property holders whose property should be taken or damaged by such vacation. The record also discloses that the petitioners for the proposed vacation did not own two-thirds of the private property abutting upon the street sought to be vacated, nor did the owners of two-thirds of the property abutting thereon consent to such vacation. It also appeared that one of the petitioners was a member of the city council of the city of Centralia, and owned property on that part of the street proposed to be vacated which would receive an accretion arising from such vacation; that the city council consisted of seven members three of whom voted against the passage of the ordinance vacating the street, and four in favor of the ordinance, one of whom was the petitioning councilman whose property would be benefited by the vacation. This action was brought by the respondents to set aside the purported vacation of the street. The plaintiffs therein are the owners of property abutting upon Tower avenue on the side of the street opposite to that part of the street vacated. To their complaint setting out the foregoing facts, and the further fact that their property would be damaged by the vacation of the part of the street sought to be vacated the city demurred, and, on its demurrer being overruled, elected to stand thereon, whereupon judgment annulling and setting aside the ordinance was entered.

The appellant first contends that the respondents have no capacity to sue; that such injuries as they will suffer by reason of the vacation of the street, while they may differ in degree, will not differ in kind from that suffered by the general public. But this position is not tenable. The rights which an owner of abutting property possesses in a street are different in kind from that possessed by one whose interest is only that of a right of way along the street. To close or partially close a street affects the right of ingress and egress to and from the property of an abutting owner, makes it possible to curtail his supply of light and air, and otherwise affects the value of his property, while a property owner whose right in the street is a mere right of way over it as one of the public does not suffer these particular injuries to his property. His loss, if any, unless the street be the only passageway from his property to the main public highways, arises from the fact that the way to and from his property is less convenient than it was before, and the courts are united in saying that this, while it may differ in degree, does not differ in kind from the injury...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • April 27, 1989
    ......Bolen v. Seattle, 61 Wash.2d 196, 198, 377 P.2d 454 (1963), Smith v. Centralia, 55 Wash. 573, 576, 104 P. 797 (1909). In . Page 643 . matters of economic ... The City of Bellingham gave a police judge jurisdiction to try certain municipal offenses--here driving ......
  • Motoramp Garage Co. v. City of Tacoma
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • November 27, 1925
    ...this court in Schwede v. Hemrich Bros. Brewing Co., 29 Wash. 21, 69 P. 362; Brazell v. Seattle, 55 Wash. 180, 104 P. 155; Smith v. Centralia, 55 Wash. 573, 104 P. 797; Sholin v. Skamania Boom Co., 56 Wash. 303, 105 Wash. 591] P. 632, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1053; State ex rel. Sylvester v. Supe......
  • Low v. Town Of Madison
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 14, 1948
    ...at the foundation of many of the reported decisions. Buffington Wheel Co. v. Burnham, 60 Iowa 493, 496, 15 N.W. 282; Smith v. Centralia, 55 Wash. 573, 577, 104 P. 797; Arbogast v. Shields, 123 W.Va. 167, 173, 14 S.E.2d 4; dicta, Daly v. George S. & F. R. Co., 80 Ga. 793, 799, 7 S.E. 146, 12......
  • Chestnut Hill Co. v. City of Snohomish
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • September 18, 1969
    ...personal interest in a matter pending before the body may not vote on the matter without invalidating the measure. See Smith v. Centralia, 55 Wash. 573, 104 P. 797 (1909); McNamara v. Borough of Saddle River, 64 N.J.Super. 426, 166 A.2d 391 (1960); Annot., 133 A.L.R. 1257 (1941). And compar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT