Bell v. Town of Mabton, 23256.

• Decision Date: 02 December 1931
• Docket Number: 23256.
• Citation: 165 Wash. 396,5 P.2d 514
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: BELL v. TOWN OF MABTON.

5 P.2d 514

165 Wash. 396

BELL v. TOWN OF MABTON.

No. 23256.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 2, 1931

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; A. W. Hawkins, Judge.

Action by J. A. Bell against the Town of Mabton. From adverse judgment, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Stephen E. Chaffee, of Sunnyside, for appellant.

Geo. O Beardsley, of Prosser, for respondent.

BEALS J.

By Ordinance No. 123, the town of Mabton, during the month of January, 1914, fixed the duties of its 'water commissioner,' although it did not creater that or any other office. By Ordinance No. 141, approved February 13 1917, the mayor was authorized to appoint certain town 'officers,' including 'one waterworks commissioner who shall perform the duties prescribed by ordinance number 123;' also 'one meter reader, whose duty it shall be to take an accurate reading of each water meter in service, at the end of each month, and record same under proper heading in a book to be prepared and provided by the town clerk, and turn the completed record back to the town clerk not later than 7 o'clock in the afternoon of the last day of every month. Also to make written reports of all bad order meters, cut offs, connections, etc., that may come to his attention at any time, and to turn on, or cut off, domestic water service when directed by the town clerk.'

It will be noted that Ordinance No. 141, in connection with the office of 'water works commissioner,' directly refers to the prior Ordinance No. 123 defining the duties of the town 'water commissioner.' How the officer referred to in Ordinance No. 123 as 'water commissioner' was designed in the prior ordinance creating the position does not appear, but the two ordinances, construed together clearly indicate that only one officer should be appointed, who should be in charge of the town's water system.

By Ordinance No. 168, passed April 27, 1920, the salaries of the town officers were fixed; sections 6 and 8 of this ordinance reading as follows:

'Section 6. That the Water Works Commissioner shall receive a compensation of $125 per month, payable out of the general fund of the town.'

'Section 8. That the Water Meter Reader shall receive a compensation of $5 per month, payable monthly out of the general fund of the town.'

The ordinance last referred to followed Ordinance No. 141 in referring to the 'water works commissioner,' but slightly departed from the language of that ordinance in fixing the salary of the 'meter reader,' who was referred to in the salary ordinance as the 'water meter reader.' As Ordinance No. 141 establishing the office clearly shows that the duties of the meter reader were to read the water meters, it must be held that the designation of the officer in the salary ordinance is sufficient, and that the salary appurtenant to the office designated as that of 'water meter reader' was properly payable to the person appointed to the office of meter reader, as established by Ordinance No. 141.

April 13, 1923, plaintiff, J. A. Bell, wrote to the mayor of Mabton the following letter:

'Please consider this an application for the position of Water Commissioner and Meter Reader the duties of which I agree to perform in a thoro manner as required by the ordinances of the town and the directions of the mayor and city council for the monthly salary of $100.00.

'[Signed] J. A. Bell.'

Concerning plaintiff's application, the minutes of a regular meeting of the city council, held April 24, 1923, discloses the following:

'Councilmen present Owings, Tresner and Boulware; Burfield came later. Minutes of previous meeting dispensed with owing to absence of Clerk Howell, and the mayor requested Councilman Boulware to act as clerk of the meeting.

'The following written applications for the position of Water Commissioner and Meter Reader were placed Before the council by the mayor: J. B. Wright, salary $100; Wm. Zyph, salary $100; J. A. Bell, salary $100; George Vierhus, salary $90; Vance Shellman, no salary stated.

'At the request of the mayor a council vote was taken on these applications, resulting in 2 votes for Bell and 1 vote for Vierhus. After some further discussion another ballot was taken, resulting in 3 votes for Bell and being unanimous the mayor thereupon appointing J. A. Bell Water Commissioner and Meter Reader.'

Pursuant to this appointment, plaintiff entered upon the performance of duties in connection therewith, which he performed up to September 20, 1930, receiving during this period a salary of $100 per month, paid upon his claims rendered to the city monthly, in the amount mentioned. After his discharge, plaintiff filed with the city a claim in a lump sum for $25 a month additional salary as water commissioner, and $5 per month as meter reader during the term of his employment; the claims being based upon the ordinances hereinabove referred to. Upon rejection of his claim by the city council, this action was instituted thereon. The trial court found in plaintiff's favor, and rendered judgment against defendant for the difference in salary for the three-year period within the statute of limitations, holding that, as to the remainder of plaintiff's claim, the same was barred by the statute. Defendant appeals, contending that plaintiff was not appointed to the positions created by Ordinance No. 141 above referred to, or to which salaries were attached by Ordinance No. 168, but, as shown by his letter and the minutes of the council, became a mere employee of the city, holding other positions and performing other duties than those specified in the ordinances for which the combined salary of $130 per month was fixed.

Appellant complains of rulings of the trial court rejecting testimony offered on appellant's behalf....