
    Argued June 1,
    reversed June 29,
    rehearing denied October 19, 1920.
    COOK v. PORTLAND.
    (190 Pac. 726.)
    From Multnomah: Roberi Tucker, Judge.
    In Banc.
    Proceeding by George H. Cook and others for a writ of review directed to the City of Portland and another. From a judgment dismissing the writ the plaintiffs appeal.
    Reversed.
    For appellants there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. Ralph R. Duniway.
    
    For respondents there was a brief over the names of Mr. Walter P. La Roche, City Attorney, and Mr. Lyman. E. Latourette, Deputy City Attorney, with an oral argument by Mr. Latourette.
    
   BEAN, J.

This is a writ of review proceeding, instituted by the plaintiff to have canceled a reassessment made by Ordinance No. 30,288, of the City of Portland, for the cost of improving Karl Street from Milwaukie Street to East Twentieth Street, in the City of Portland. The trial court affirmed the proceeding making the reassessment and dismissed the writ, and plaintiffs appeal.

The petition for the writ alleges that the city' authorities were without authority to make the assessment by Ordinance No. 30,288, because the resolution of intention for making the original improvement of Karl Street was passed August 5, 1903, and more than ten years had elapsed since the passage of such resolution of intention prior to the passage of Resolution No. 8384, on December 23, 1914, institutdng proceedings for reassessment by Ordinance No. 30,288.

The facts of the case are substantially the same, and the case is governed by the same principles of law as in Brown v. Portland, ante, p. 600 (190 Pac. 722), and Hochfeld v. Portland, ante, p. 572 (190 Pac. 725), in each of which an opinion has this day been rendered.

The judgment of the lower court will therefore be reversed, the writ sustained, and the reassessment made by Ordinance No. 30,288 set aside.

Reversed. Rehearing Denied.  