1 IN KING COUNTY et al, Parkinson v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 in King County
Decision Date | 17 April 1902 |
Citation | 68 P. 875,28 Wash. 335 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | PARKINSON v. SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 IN KING COUNTY et al. |
Appeal from superior court, King county; Boyd J. Tallman, Judge.
Injunction by Edward J. Parkinson against Seattle school district No. 1 in King county, and others, as directors thereof, to restrain the issuance of bonds. Judgment dismissing the complaint, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
James Kiefer, for appellant.
Walter S. Fulton, for respondents.
Seattle school district No. 1, King county, Wash., by proper resolution, submitted to the qualified electors of that district a proposition of issuing and selling $275,000 of 20-year 4 per cent. bonds for the purpose of purchasing sites and erecting necessary buildings for the use of the school district. An election was regularly and properly called for the 30th day of November, 1901, on which day more than three-fifths of the electors voting at such election voted in favor of the issue and sale of the bonds named. In pursuance of the authority thus given, the board of directors of said district passed a resolution as follows: Upon proper request the county treasurer of King county issued and published a notice calling for bids for the purchase of the bonds as follows: In response to this notice two bids were received. The one accepted was as follows: This action was brought by appellant, who is a resident, property owner, and taxpayer of the district, to enjoin the issuance of the bonds. The complaint alleged the facts substantially as above set out. Respondents demurred to the complaint upon the ground that the same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This demurrer was sustained by the lower court, and plaintiff elected to stand upon his complaint, and a judgment of dismissal was entered. From this judgment plaintiff appeals. Appellant argues that the bonds are illegal, unauthorized, and void for two reasons, viz.: (1) That in the notice of election and in the formal proposition submitted to the voters upon these bonds the rate of interest is fixed at 4 per cent.; (2) that the notice, as published, fixed a flat rate of interest, instead of requesting a tender of such rate of interest as the bidder or bidders would be willing to accept.
1. It is contended by appellant that the election at which the bonds were authorized was invalid, because the notice thereof arbitrarily fixed the rate of interest at 4 per cent., instead of leaving the rate of interest open to competition. Sections 117 and 118 of the Code of Public Instruction (Laws 1897, pp. 401, 402), are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anselmi v. City of Rock Springs, 2088
... ... from the District Court, Sweetwater County; V. J. TIDBALL, ... Action ... by John ... defines the term "sewer" as (1) a ditch or surface ... drain; (2) an ... Pittsburgh, 177 F. 936; Parkinson v ... School Dist., 28 Wash. 335, 68 P. 875; ... ...
-
Granite Falls Library Capital Facility Area v. Taxpayers of Granite Falls Library Capital Facility Area
...the power to determine that a tax be imposed, to fix the amount, purpose, or subject of the exaction it had broad powers).42 28 Wash. 335, 340, 68 P. 875 (1902).43 Id. (citing Yesler v. City of Seattle, 1 Wash. 308, 25 P. 1014 (1890)).44 See Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Educ., 387 U.S. 105, 87 S.......
-
State v. Banks
... ... 1. The ... power of the state legislature in the ... to be submitted. ( Yesler v. City of Seattle, 1 Wash ... 308, 25 P. 1014; Parkinson v. tle School Dist. No. 1, 28 ... Wash. 335, 68 P. 875.) ... county, or city and county, if one be published therein, ... ...
-
Paine v. Port of Seattle
... ... from Superior Court, King County; H. A. P. Myers, Judge ... cities, towns, and school districts are specifically named ... and ... in section 1, art. 2, of the Constitution, as follows: [70 ... Our decision in Parkinson v. Seattle ... School District, 28 Wash ... ...