
    [No. 2015.
    Decided July 9, 1896.]
    Tacoma Land Company, Appellant, v. City of Tacoma et al., Respondents.
    
    MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — STREET IMPROVEMENTS — ESTOPPEL OP PROPERTY OWNER.
    Although the resolution of the city council authorizing a street improvement, and the notice given thereof, may he illegal, a property owner is estopped from raising objection thereto, when, subsequent to such resolution and notice, he had executed a release of damages and signed the petition for the proposed improvement and requested the city to go on with the work and assess his property.
    Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County. — Hon John C. Stallcup, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      Tillotson & Milligan, for appellant.
    
      James Wickersham, Stacy W. Gibbs, R. B. Lehman, B. F. Heuston, and T. W. Hammond, for respondents.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dunbar, J.

After the resolution was passed and notice given to grade the street in controversy, which, under the case of Buckley v. Tacoma, 9 Wash. 269 (37 Pac. 446), must be conceded to have been illegal, the appellant executed a release of damages and signed the petition for the improvement and requested the city to go on with the work and assess its property.

Briefs have been prepared with great care and at considerable length by all the parties to this case, but it seems to us that, under the authority of Barlow v. Tacoma, 12 Wash. 32 (40 Pac. 382); Travis v. Ward, 2 Wash. 30 (25 Pac. 908); and Wingate v. Tacoma, 13 Wash. 603 (43 Pac. 874), the appellant is absolutely estopped from raising any objection to the legality of this assessment, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed.

Hoyt, C. J., and Anders, Gordon and Scott, JJ., concur.  