Wilson v. City of Seattle

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: STILES, J.
• Citation: Wilson v. City of Seattle, 2 Wash. 543, 27 P. 474 (Wash. 1891)
• Decision Date: 09 July 1891
• Parties: WILSON v. CITY OF SEATTLE ET AL.

27 P. 474

2 Wash. 543

WILSON v. CITY OF SEATTLE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 9, 1891

Appeal from superior court, King county; LICHTENBURG, Judge.

Certiorari to quash a street assessment, by John Wilson against the city of Seattle and others. Assessment affirmed. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Tustin, Gearin & Crews, for appellant.

O Jacobs, for respondents.

STILES J.

Appellant seeks by certiorari to quash an assessment upon certain real estate fronting upon South Twelfth street, in the city of Seattle, for grading and sidewalks. In the court below, a demurrer to the petition was overruled, and the writ issued; but upon the return the proceedings of the city council, including the levy, were affirmed.

The first point we are required to pass upon is the objection of the respondents that certiorari is not the proper remedy in this case. The improvement for which this assessment was laid was undertaken by the city of Seattle in June, 1890, while the charter of 1886 was in force. Under that charter, (section 10, Acts 1886, p. 243,) such assessments were to be collected by an action at law or a suit in equity in the name of the city, or the officer or contractor to whom it might be directed that payment should be made. Had that law continued in force, we should probably have held that the opportunity thus given to the owner of assessed real estate afforded the proper method and time for contesting the assessment to the exclusion of the remedy by certiorari. Garvin v. Daussman, 114 Ind 429, 16 N.E. 826. But under the charter of the city of Seattle adopted October 1, 1890, the act of 1886 was completely superseded, and a new method of collecting such assessments was provided, viz., by sale by the treasurer. Charter 1890, art. 8, § 8; Id. art. 9, § 24. This renders it necessary to examine the law of the case to see whether the appellant is provided any remedy for the wrong he complains of, by appeal or otherwise; and there seems to be none at all. When there is no remedy by appeal certiorari- is the ordinary method of reviewing such cases. Elliott, Roads & S. p. 279 et seq.

The issuance of the writ was therefore proper; and the next question is, what was the scope of the inquiry to be made upon the return, the superior court having, under the constitution, (article 4, § 6,) jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in the common-law sense? The common-law writ of certiorari is the proper remedy upon which to correct the errors of all inferior tribunals where they have exceeded their jurisdiction or proceeded illegally, and there is no appeal or other mode of reviewing or correcting their proceedings. Wood, Mand. "Certiorari," etc., 207; Camden v. Bloch, 65 Ala. 236; State v. Whitford, 54 Wis. 150, 11 N.W. 424; People v. Police Board, 72 N.Y. 415. We believe this to be the general rule in this class of cases, though there is some diversity of opinion on the point as to whether the inquiry should extend beyond the question of jurisdiction.

Upon the return to the writ, therefore, it was incumbent upon the court to examine the record to determine- First, whether the city had jurisdiction; second, whether the proceedings were according to the statutes and ordinances. By her charter of 1886, the city of Seattle had power to order the improvement of streets at the cost of abutting owners, either upon petition of the owners of more than half the property to be affected, or, in the absence of such a petition, by a unanimous vote of all the members of the council present at a regular meeting. The charter left the matter of making regulations for the exercise of this power to the city; and about June 1, 1886, an ordinance (No. 737) for that purpose went into effect. This ordinance provided for assessment districts extending a certain distance on each side of the street to be improved and that the expense should be assessed upon property in the district according to its value. It appears that after several petitions of property owners for the improvement of different sections of South Twelfth street had been presented to the council, and after some of them had been "granted," the council on the 25th day of June, 1890, passed ordinance No. 1413, providing for the grading, etc., of South Twelfth street from Yesler avenue to Stacey street, by the unanimous vote of seven councilmen, being all the members present at a regular meeting held on that day. The body of the ordinance provided that it should take effect from its passage, approval, and publication, and that the work should be completed within 180 days from the date of the execution of the contract for the improvement. The record is silent as to whether any contract was made, and as to whether the work, or any part of it, has ever been done. It is meager in other particulars also, where, in view of the importance of the proceeding, care and exactness would naturally be expected. But, as but two points are urged on this appeal, we shall confine our remarks to them. Upon the passage of ordinance No. 737 in 1886, it was incumbent upon the municipal authorities to adhere strictly to its provisions in making assessments. Sections 4-7 of ordinance No. 737 were as follows: "Sec. 4. That, within twenty days after the council shall have made an order for the improvement of any street, highway, or alley, the city surveyor shall prepare and file with the clerk a plat of the street or streets, highway or highways, alley or alleys, so to be improved, and of the real estate subject to assessment therefor, showing the lines of such lot or other smallest subdivision thereof; and within ten days thereafter the city clerk shall prepare and file in his office an assessment roll for each separate assessment district, if several streets, highways, or alleys are to be improved at the same time, upon which assessment roll each lot or other smallest subdivision of real estate in such district shall be listed in the name of the owner thereof, if known, or as 'unknown owner,' and assessed at the actual cash value thereof: provided, that in all cases the valuation to be placed on each lot in such assessment roll shall, as far as practicable, be the same as that placed upon the same property upon the last preceding annual assessment roll and tax-list for the city of Seattle; and such assessment roll shall be open to public inspection at the clerk's office during business hours from the time of filing thereof until the day of the meeting of the council for the equalization thereof, as hereinafter provided. Sec. 5. That within three (3) days from the filing of such assessment roll, the clerk shall advertise a notice in a daily newspaper of the city to the effect that such assessment...