Ross v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.

SLOSS, J.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant in an action for the cancellation of a street assessment. The judgment was entered upon the sustaining of a demurrer to the complaint.

Two of the appellant’s objections to the proceedings are answered by a reference to

Gay

v.

Engebretsen,

(L. A. No. 2455),

ante,

p. 21, [109 Pac. 876], where we held the same points to be without merit.

An additional question is here presented. The court, on motion of the defendant, struck from the complaint certain allegations relative to the method of computing the assessments. The work covered by the contract consisted of paving Seventh Street from the south line of B Street to the north line of L Street. In this distance there were various intersections of cross-streets, among others, I Street. Plaintiff was the owner of a corner lot, having a frontage of 50 feet on Seventh Street, and 100 feet on I Street. The matter stricken out consisted of averments that the superintendent, in making

[38]

the assessments, had made the same in accordance with the (frontage of the lots on Seventh Street, except in the case of intersections, for which he had assessed corner lots in accordance with their frontages on both Seventh Street and the cross-street, while inside lots were assessed only on the basis of frontage on Seventh Street.

That this method was the one prescribed by the Vrooman Act (Stats. 1885, p. 152, sec. 7, subd. 3), is not disputed. It is claimed, however, that the statutory provision for assessing intersections is in violation of the constitution. The contention does not appeal to us as tenable. There can no longer be, in this state, any question of the validity of the general method provided by the Vrooman Act for assessing property for street improvements according to the frontage of the property on the line of the improvement.

(Hadley