Skip to main content
· 2/25/1903

Young v. City of Tacoma

Citations

  • 31 Wash. 153
  • 71 P. 742
  • 1903 Wash. LEXIS 598

Syllabus

<p>MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-STREET IMPROVEMENTS-INVALIDITY OE ASSESSMENT-REASSESSMENT.</p> <p>Under Laws 1893, p. 226, which authorizes the making of a reassessment for the cost of public improvements wnen an assessment has been “set aside, annulled, or declared void by any court, either directly or by virtue of any decision of such court,” a city would have jurisdiction to order a reassessment where a portion of an assessment had been invalidated at the suit of a part of the property holders affected thereby.</p> <p>SAME-COST OF FUTURE REPAIRS-INCLUSION IN ASSESSMENT.</p> <p>An assessment for the construction of a street improvement cannot, under the city charter of Tacoma, include an assessment for future repairs to be made to the work so constructed {Mc-Allister v. Tacoma, 9 Wash. 272, followed).</p> <p>SAME-CONTRACT' TO KEEP IN REPAIR-QUESTION FOR JURY.</p> <p>A contract requiring a street contractor to give a bond to the city conditioned that he would at his own expense keep the work done by him in thorough repair from injury by traffic, decomposition and decay for the term of five years from the completion of the contract cannot be determined as a matter of law to be a provision for future repairs, but raises a question of fact to be determined from evidence showing the quality of material employed and the effect of climatic conditions.</p> <p>SAME DEDUCTION FROM ASSESSMENT OF ADDED COST OF REPAIRS.</p> <p>The mere fact that the expense of future repairs may have been included in the original assessment for a street improvement would not invalidate proceedings for a reassessment, but the added cost occasioned in view of the possibility of future repairs should be determined and deducted from the total amount, and reassessment made to cover the balance.</p> <p>SAME-OBJECTIONS TO ASSESSMENT NOT RAISED BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.</p> <p>Objections to the inclusion in a street assessment of items for the expense of inspection and engineering on the improvement and of pavin

Judges: Hadley

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.