City of Seattle v. Sylvester-Cowen Investment Co.

Citations

• 55 Wash. 659
• 104 P. 1121
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 818

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations — Improvements—Assessments — Reduction — Property Aeeected — Statutes — Construction. Under Laws 1907, p. 316, § 28, providing that on confirmation of an assessment of property for local improvements, default “may” be entered as to the property of noncontesting owners, “may” should not be construed to mean “must,” in view of other provisions of the statute authorizing the court to apportion part of the cost of the improvement to the city, and to change any assessment or recast the same according to the “principles” of the act, which appear to require each parcel of land to “bear its relative equitable ¡proportion” of the costs.</p> <p>Same — Excessive Assessments — Appeal — Review. An assessment ordered by the court against property benefited by a local improvement will not be reduced as excessive unless the evidence so clearly preponderates against the finding as to indicate arbitrary action.</p> <p>Same — Ordinance—Validity—Title—Legality oe Object — Construction. An ordinance entitled an ordinance to provide for laying out and establishing streets and “parkways” and levying assessments against the property benefited, the city to bear the expense not levied .against property benefited, is not void by reason of including parkways for which no assessment could be made on private property, where private property was not sought to be assessed for the parkways, which were procured thereunder by private treaty at the expense of the city.</p> <p>Same — Title—Duplicity. An ordinance entitled an ordinance providing for the laying out, extending, etc., of certain streets as highways, boulevards and parkways, and for the condemnation of land therefor, is not void in that it embraces more than one subject, viz., condemnation (1) for streets and (2) for parkways; since it all relates to one general subject — the condemnation of land for a public use.</p>