Bilger v. State

• Decision Date: 15 November 1910
• Citation: 111 P. 771,60 Wash. 454
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: BILGER et al. v. STATE et al.

111 P. 771

60 Wash. 454

BILGER et al. v. STATE et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 15, 1910

Department 1. Action by William L. Bilger and others against the State of Washington and others. Defendants, who appealed from the judgment for plaintiffs, apply for a supersedeas suspending operation of the judgment pending appeal. Supersedeas ordered.

H. A P. Myers and Roger S. Greene, for appellants.

P. C Sullivan and Thomas A. Meade, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This action was instituted by the owners of certain shore lands on Lake Washington to restrain the state, the county of King and C.J. Erickson, a contractor under the state, from excavating a certain canal connecting Lake Union with Lake Washington, from levying an assessment on the property of the plaintiffs to defray the expenses of such excavation, and from issuing warrants against the state shore land improvement fund created by the act of March 17, 1909 (Laws 1909, p. 746), for the like purpose. On the trial in the court below a final judgment was given in favor of the plaintiffs, according to the prayer of their complaint, from which the defendants have appealed.

Since the appeal was perfected, the appellants have applied to this court for a supersedeas suspending the operation of the judgment pending the appeal, and the matter is now before us for determination. The injunction complained of is very broad, stopping as it does a public improvement of great magnitude in which both the state and federal government are interested, and we deem it our duty to suspend its operation pending the appeal, in so far as we can do so without materially affecting the property or property rights of the respondents. So far as we are able to discover from an examination of the record, the respondents can only be prejudiced or injured in their property or property rights by the acts complained of in two ways: First, by lowering the waters of Lake Washington so as to affect their riparian and littoral rights; and, second, by imposing burdens on their property by way of taxes or special assessments. The question of lowering the waters of the lake has already been disposed of by an order heretofore entered in this court, so that the second question alone remains. The state shore land improvement fund is a state fund under state control, and private individuals will not be heard to complain of the manner of its disposition. Jones v. Reed, 3 Wash 57...