Cited by

specially benefited in the enhancement of property peculiarly situated as regards the contemplated expenditure of public money.” State v. Reis, 38 Minn. 371, 373-74, 38 N.W.

As explained by Mr. Justice Mitchell many years ago in State v. Reis, 38 Minn. 371 , the constitution merely prohibits assessing a double special-benefit tax on one parcel of property with a cash value twice that of another, when the special benefits received by both properties are equal.

It is clear, therefore, that an assessment is proper even if the general public benefits thereby as long as it is established that “it shall benefit the property on which the cost is assessed in a manner local in its nature, and not enjoyed by property generally in the city.” State v. Reis, 38 Minn. 371, 373 , In re Improvement of Lake of the Isles Park, 152 Minn. 29

Stateler v. Reis, 38 Minn. 371, 375 , , we held that “local improvements” includes “anything for which a tax by special assessment might, under the general rules of law, be imposed, — that is, any public purpose from which the property assessed derives a benefit special and local in its nature.” See, In re Improvement of Lake of the

Stateler v. Reis, 38 Minn. 371, 374 , .

Stateler v. Reis, 38 Minn. 371 , .

The term “local improvements” refers to “anything for which a tax by special assessment might, under the general rules of law, be imposed, that is, any public purpose from which the property assessed derives a benefit special and local in its nature.” State v. Reis, 38 Minn. 371 , .

1913A, 653, in both of which the authorities are collated and analyzed; also State v. Reis, 38 Minn. 371 , ; State v. District Court of St.

Defendant’s title is herein attacked upon certificates issued for assessments by the city for street sprinkling held to be authorized as local improvements in State v. Reis, 38 Minn. 371 , .

lt in equality of apportionment, or that in its operation, when carried into effect with honesty, and in the exercise of sound judgment on the part of those who are to execute its provisions, it will produce such gross inequality as cannot be deemed, in a just sense, an apportioning ‘as nearly as may be’ of the burden, before courts can interfere and declare the enactment void.” In State v. Reis, 38 Minn. 371 , , in sustaining the “Street Sprinkling Act,” speaking through Justice MITCHELL, the c

In speaking on the subject of local *330 improvements in the case of State v. Reis, 38 Minn. 371, 373 , , MITCHELL, J., said: “It is not the agency used, or its comparative durability, but the result accomplished, which must determine whether a work is an improvement in the sense in which that word is here used.

We need not discuss this point, for the validity of local assessments apportioned according to benefits ascertained or benefits implied, according to frontage, or some other such fixed standard, was affirmed by this court in State v. Reis, 38 Minn. 371 , .