Skip to main content
· 9/8/1920

City of Seattle v. Peabody

Citations

  • 112 Wash. 418
  • 192 P. 961
  • 1920 Wash. LEXIS 774

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations (267-1) —Improvements—Assessments— Benefits—Review. The report of eminent domain commissioners as to benefits to property from the establishment of a street, fortified by the findings and judgment of the trial court in confirmation thereof, will not be disturbed unless the evidence so clearly preponderates as to indicate arbitrariness and manifest oppression.</p> <p>Same (267-3)—Assessments—Review—Arbitrary Action. While ordinarily the question of benefits to property from a public improvement is one of fact, the finding of which by the eminent domain commissioners will not be disturbed except for arbitrariness or manifest abuse, yet when it is obvious from the physical'condition of the property, its locality, environment and character of the improvement, that an assessment should not be laid upon the property for the purpose, and that to do so would amount to an exaction from the property owner which he should not be obliged to make as a special assessment, the courts will interfere to prevent a consummation of the injustice.</p> <p>Same (241)—Assessments—Speculative or Intended Benefits. The eminent domain commissioners in fixing the amount of assessments or determining the question of benefits to property from a local improvement shouid take into consideration the present as well as the future use to which the property is reasonably adaptable. yet the benefit must be a present one and immediately accruing from the improvement in question, and landowners cannot be assessed for speculative or intended benefits which may never be realized.</p> <p>Same (241, 267-2)—Assessments—Benefits—Remote or Speculative Benefits—Evidence—Sufficiency. An assessment on property for benefits from a proposed street is invalid as resting upon a fundamentally wrong basis, where the property, located on an island, is separated from the proposed street by a navigable water-' way subject to the control of the Federal government and by privately owned property abu

Judges: Mitchell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.