Spokane Traction Co. v. Granath

• Decision Date: 04 April 1906
• Citation: 85 P. 261,42 Wash. 506
• Parties: SPOKANE TRACTION CO. v. GRANATH et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

85 P. 261

42 Wash. 506

SPOKANE TRACTION CO. v. GRANATH et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 4, 1906

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

Action by the Spokane Traction Company against Louis Granath and others. From the judgment, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

N. J Thayer and A. E. Gallagher, for appellants.

Graves & Graves and B. H. Kizer, for appellee.

ROOT J.

This action was brought by petitioner, a street railway corporation, to have assessed the amount of damages sustained by appellants by reason of damage to their property caused by improvements which respondent railway company intended to make. The contemplated improvements consisted of the erection of a high bridge upon Boone avenue over the Spokane river and the grading of Boone avenue toward the east from said river in the city of Spokane. The property of appellant is situated on the south side of said avenue, abutting thereon and close to the river. The following diagram will show the relative positions of the river, streets, lots, and blocks, referred to herein:

(Image Omitted)

The grade as constructed by respondent on Boone avenue, east of the river and in front of appellants' property, varied in height from 13.5 feet to 5.4 feet; the highest point of the grade being near the bridge. Prior to the construction of the bridge and grade, appellants' property was on a level with Boone avenue, and with Helena and Hogan and South Riverside streets. The case was tried before the court, sitting without a jury, and findings of fact and conclusions of law were made and filed. A part of finding numbered 8 reads as follows: 'Block 5 was damaged by the change in the grade of Boone avenue and the construction of the bridge, over and above the benefits accruing to it from said improvement, in the sum of $1. Lot 1, in block 24, was damaged by the construction of the bridge and the grading of Boone avenue, over and above the benefits accruing to it from the improvement, in the sum of $90. The fee-simple interest in lot 2, in block 24, was damaged by the construction of the bridge and the grading of Boone avenue, over and above the benefits it received from said improvements, in the sum of $52.50, while the leasehold interest in said lot 2 was damaged in the sum of $1.' In a finding referring to the improvements upon block 5 and lot 1 of block 24, the court said: 'These improvements were not depreciated in value over and above the benefit accruing from the improvement in any sum whatsoever, and therefore I have made no allowances for damages thereto in fixing the amounts above specified.'

The principal contention made by the appellants is that the lower court permitted the benefits which accrued to appellants' property by reason of the construction of the bridge across the river to be offset against the damages caused to their property by reason of the grading and filling of the street in front thereof, urging that said benefits were not special, but general. It is shown that the construction of this bridge and the grading and filling of the street in front of said premises were parts of one and the same plan of the improvement in that vicinity. The city had granted the street railway company an ordinance, which required them, upon the construction of their bridge across the river, to maintain the same as a thoroughfare for the use of the public, and required them also to lay their tracks upon Boone avenue, east of the river, so that said tracks would be flush with the grade established for said street. In order to comply with this last-mentioned requirement, it was necessary for the railway company to fill in the street extending from the end of the bridge and past the property of the appellants, and further on to make a considerable cut in order to get a practicable grade from the end of said bridge to that portion of the street lying some distance from the river; there being quite a bluff or elevation extending along the river and some little distance therefrom.

Appellants claim that the building of this bridge, and the opening and maintenance of the same for highway purposes, was a benefit to their property of the same character enjoyed by property owners generally in all that portion of the city, and for this reason could not be deemed 'special,' as that term is understood in connection with matters of this kind. We do not think this contention can be upheld. The construction and maintenance of a bridge across the river with one terminus almost immediately in front of appellants' property, furnished an advantage of access of and from the business portions of the city that was of special value to said property. Doubtless many other pieces of property in that immediate vicinity were likewise specially benefited, but we think that the advantages and the increase of value which would of necessity come to this particular property by reason of the construction and maintenance of said bridge, as aforesaid, was such as to characterize these benefits as special, and such as should be offset against the damages....