Buck v. Town of Monroe

Citations

• 85 Wash. 1
• 147 P. 432
• 1915 Wash. LEXIS 819

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations — Public Improvements — Statutory Provisions. In making local improvements, the general rule that a city must follow the letter of the law, construed strictly against the city does not obtain, in view of 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 7892-69, providing that the statute is to be liberally construed for the purpose of carrying out the object for which the act is intended.</p> <p>Municipal Corporations' — Public Improvements — ■ Remonstrance —Statutes. Under 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 7892-66, providing that no ordinance for a local improvement shall be effective over the written objection of the owner of a majority of the property affected filed with the clerk “prior to the final passage of such ordinance, unless such ordinance shall receive an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the members of the council or other legislative body of such city or town,” it is not necessary for the council to take direct action upon the remonstrance, since the passage of the ordinance by a two-thirds vote subsequent to a hearing of the remonstrance is practically a rejection thereof and a passage of the ordinance by the required vote.</p> <p>Municipal Corporations — Public Improvements —■ Street Intersections — Powers oe Council. Under 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 7892-55, which provides that there shall be included in the cost of a local improvement assessed against property specially benefited the cost of that portion of the improvement included within the limits of any street intersection, the city may include the whole or a part of the intersections to be taxed against the property benefited, or may pay for the whole or a part of such intersections out of its general fund.</p> <p>Municipal Corporations — Public Improvements — Record — Vote op Council. The record on the passage of an ordinance reciting that “the roll was then called on the passage of the ordinance and resulted in all members of the council voting ‘Yea’ except H., who was absent,” sufficiently shows