No Date Effect of Like Existing Improvement
t 38.34
owners of property on such street
could not sell their property for any
more after the improvement than
before, does not show that it was not
benefited by the improvement. Ber-
ger v. Columbus, 27 Ohio Cir Ct Rep
812.
Whether a lot is in need of local,
artificial drainage must be deter-
mined from the facts and circum-
stances and surroundings at the time
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
the assessment is made. Cincinnati v.
Hess, 19 Ohio Cir Ct Rep 252, 10
Ohio Cir Dec 479.
West Virginia. Sterling Nat.
Bank & Trust Co. of New York v.
Charleston Transit Co., 126 W Va 42,
27 SE2d 256.
· South Dakota. Hawley v. Hot
Springs, 276 NW2d 704 (SD) (combi-
nation of income, market and cost
approaches used in valuation).
f 38.34. - Effect of like existing improvement.
If property is not benefited by an improvement by reason of
the existence of a like or similar improvement from which the
property derives all the benefit of the kind necessary to its use
and enjoyment, it is not subject to assessment for the later
improvement.. Where a corner lot receives adequate water
supply from pipes laid in one adjoining street it cannot be
assessed for the laying of pipes in the other adjoining street from
which it would receive no benefits.2 But a landowner situated
within a water district must pay an assessment for a water
supply, even though possessing his own supply.! Although an
owner of property abutting on a. river has dredged a channel
sufficient for the uses to which he is devoting the property, it
does not defeat an assessment for dredging done by the city..
I Colorado. Denver v. Green-
spoon, 140 Colo 402, 344 P2d 679.
Illinois. McChesney v. Chicago,
213 III 592, 73 NE 368.
Michigan. Fluckey y. Plym-
outh, 358 Mich 447, 100 NW2d 486
(repaving to accommodate heavy
truck traffic).
Minnesota. Independent
School Dist. No. 709, St. Louis Coun-
ty v. Duluth, 287 Minn 200, 177
NW2d 812.
New York. People v. Buffalo,
86 Hun 618, 36 NYS 191.
'.
Ohio. Wewell v. Cincinnati, 45
Ohio St 407, 15 NE 196; MilIer v.
Toledo, 7 Ohio NP 477, 5 Ohio S &
Com PI Dec 162.
Oregon. Wing v. Eugene, 249
Or 367, 437 P2d 836.
Pennsylvania. Upper Gwynedd
Tp. Authority v. Caltabiano, 206 Pa
Super 476, 214 A2d 288; In re Wil-
liams St., 13 Pa Super 266, 10 Kulp
131; Reading v. Shepp, 13 Pa Co Ct
634.
But see Michener v. Philadel-
phia, 118 Pa 535, 12 A 174.
158