34, Maxon v. School Dist. No. 34 of Spokane County

• Decision Date: 22 December 1892
• Citation: 32 P. 110,5 Wash. 142
• Parties: MAXON v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 34; OF SPOKANE COUNTY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

32 P. 110

5 Wash. 142

MAXON v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 34; OF SPOKANE COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 22, 1892

For majority opinion, see 31 P. 462.

Act Jan. 31, 1888, provides that "whenever the board of county commissioners of any county of this territory, or the mayor and common council of any incorporated city or town, or the tribunal transacting the business of any municipal corporation, shall contract with any person or persons to do any work of any character for which, if performed for an individual, a right of lien would exist under the law, or make any improvement for such county * * * or other municipal corporation, such board * * * or other tribunal transacting the business of any other municipal corporation shall take from the person with whom such contract is made a good and sufficient bond." Held, that school districts are municipal corporations, within the meaning of this statute there being no other corporations than school districts in the state at the time of its passage, besides those enumerated in the statute, and school districts being mentioned in connection with municipal corporations in the constitution. Article 7, § 2, and article 8, § 6.

HOYT, J., (dissenting.)

I am unable to agree with the majority of the court in the affirmance of this case. In my opinion, the district could not be held liable until there had been an adjudication of the amount of the indebtedness as between the plaintiff and the contractor. Such indebtedness could have been established in this action had such contractor been made a party thereto but, he not having been made such party, it, of course follows that there could be no adjudication as to the amount of the indebtedness as against him. The object of the statute under which the action was brought was to furnish protection in case of work done upon public buildings, similar to that afforded by our lien law when the work was done upon private buildings. There is nothing in the act which tends to show an intent upon the part of the legislature to give any more extensive rights to the claimant than are given to him under the lien law, and from the nature of the property against which claims of this kind are to be enforced, and of the corporations which are the owners thereof, I not only do not see any reason for extending the remedy but, on the contrary I see many reasons why the same should be restricted, and kept within more narrow bounds than are those which are to be enforced under the lien law. Under that law, they are to be enforced against private parties, and as against...