Mitchell v. Board of Trustees

THOMPSON (R. L.), J.

This is a suit in equity to enjoin the city council of Woodland from making street im

[226]

provements and levying assessments therefor, on the ground that the proceeding would amount to a confiscation of the property without compensation.

The appellants owned several lots in a sparsely settled portion of the outskirts of Woodland. The trustees of the city duly adopted a resolution pursuant to the City Improvement Act of the state of California (Stats. 1911, p. 730, and amendments thereto), declaring their intention to construct cement sidewalks adjacent to the property of the appellants. At the time set for the hearing of the resolution to construct public improvements, the plaintiffs appeared in open meeting of the council and filed written protests against the proposed improvements, upon the ground that the cost of such improvements to the adjoining property owners would exceed the value of the benefits and would therefore amount, to a confiscation thereof without compensation. Although the opportunity was afforded, the appellants offered no evidence in support of their protests. The council thereupon overruled and denied the protests and proceeded to advertise for bids for the performance of the work. This action was then brought to declare the proceedings for the acquiring of the improvements void and seeking to enjoin the defendants from awarding a contract for the work. A strict compliance with the statutory proceedings on the part of the council is not challenged.

Upon trial the court found that plaintiffs duly filed their protests and were present at the time fixed for the hearing thereof; that although they were requested to present evidence in support of their protests, they failed and neglected to do so; that the council thereupon overruled and denied the protests and that this determination was final and conclusive. Judgment was accordingly rendered against the plaintiffs. The evidence supports these findings.

It is true the record discloses the fact that there was some informal conversation with the trustees at the hearing respecting the grounds of protest, but no witnesses were sworn and no evidence was adduced in support of the protests. The record in this regard is quite similar to the proceedings which occurred in the case of