City of Seattle v. Farwell

Citations

• 87 Wash. 218

Syllabus

<p>New Tbial—Absence of Counsel—Timely Objections. Tbe absence of counsel retained and familiar witb the cause, and tbe necessity of substituting new counsel who failed to properly present tbe case, is not ground for a new trial, where tbe trial was entered upon without objection.</p> <p>Municipal Coepoeations — Impbovements — Benefits — Assessments—Review. An assessment by eminent domain commissioners will not be set aside as unequal or excessive, or for failing to assess property in tbe district, upon a mere difference of opinion between tbe commissioners and tbe objectors as to tbe amount of tbe benefits; but it must appear that they acted arbitrarily or upon a fundamentally wrong basis.</p> <p>Same—Assessment of Benefits—Objections—Time foe Taking. Where items of expense in assessing benefits were not included in tbe judgment of condemnation, tbe property owners are entitled to object to tbe same upon tbe bearing on confirmation of tbe roll, that being their first opportunity.</p> <p>Same—Assessment of Benefits—Unseasonable Expenses—Pbesumptions—Burden of Peoof. Under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 7787, providing that assessments for improvements may include all costs and expenses of tbe proceedings, including tbe estimated costs of making tbe assessments, tbe payment by tbe eminent domain commissioners of $7.50 a day to experts in land values for periods of 30, 33, and 49 days in estimating tbe amount of damages from tbe opening of 3,600 feet of highway, will be presumed to be reasonable and necessary until tbe contrary is shown; and tbe burden of proof is not met by a mere statement of tbe services and charges.</p> <p>Constitutional Law—Due Peocess—Municipal Coepoeations— Impeovement Distbicts. Tbe statute empowering cities to define tbe assessment district on which an assessment for a local improvement is to be made does not violate tbe due process clause of tbe state and Federal constitutions.</p>