Board of Com'rs of King County v. Davies

• Decision Date: 02 June 1890
• Citation: 1 Wash. 290,24 P. 540
• Parties: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF KING COUNTY v. DAVIES ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

24 P. 540

1 Wash. 290

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF KING COUNTY v. DAVIES ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 2, 1890

Error to superior court, King county.

J. C. Haines, E. M. Carr, Pros. Atty and H. R. Harris, for appellant.

Junius Rochester, for appellees.

STILES J.

Plaintiffs in error constituted the board of county commissioners of King county, to whom in the month of May, 1890, a resolution of the city council of Seattle was addressed, requesting the board to submit to the qualified electors of the city, and of certain territory adjacent to the city, the question of extending the corporate limits of the city over the adjacent territory, therein described. Twenty-five residents and freeholders of the adjacent territory joined in preferring the request. The board refused the request, and, for the purpose of obtaining a judicial construction of the law of the case, joined with the defendants in error in a friendly action in the superior court of King county, substantially in the form of a petition for a writ of mandate against the board, to require it to proceed in accordance with the request, under the provisions of the act of the legislature approved February 26, 1890, entitled "An act to provide for the extending and enlarging of the corporate limits of any city, town, or village in this state and for consolidating and uniting cities, towns, and villages, and declaring an emergency." It was agreed that the terms of the act had been complied with in all formal requirements of it, and the defense of the board was based upon two grounds, viz.: (1) That the territory proposed to be annexed was in two widely separated tracts; (2) that the act of February 26th was repealed by implication by an act approved March 27, 1890, entitled "An act providing for the organization, classification, incorporation, and government of municipal corporations, and declaring an emergency." The court below held against the board, and this writ of error is to obtain a review of its decision.

The first objection raised by the board would furnish matter for serious discussion, owing to the peculiar situation of the territory proposed to be included within the city limits but, as we shall hold that the second objection is well taken, it will not be necessary that we discuss or decide the first. The act of February 26th provided three methods by which outside territory might be brought within the corporate limits of an existing city, town, or village. By the first method, a petition of a majority of the legal voters of the territory proposed to be annexed, addressed to the legislative authority of the municipal incorporation, was sufficient authority for the passage of an ordinance declaring the annexation. By the second method, if the owner of land adjacent to a municipal incorporation lays it off as an addition to the city, town, or village, the whole tract thereafter becomes a part of the incorporation, ipso facto, for all purposes. By neither of the above methods is any record of the new corporate boundaries made with the board of county commissioners or the secretary of state. But under the third method, however, the element of consent on the part of the outside parties, being neither present nor presumed, an entirely different course is prescribed. The council or board of trustees must first, by ordinance, request the board of county commissioners to call an election, and 25 residents and freeholders (not necessarily electors) of the territory proposed to be annexed must join in preferring the request, which, although it is thus mildly denominated, by the terms of the act operates as a command which the board cannot refuse to obey. But the commissioners, from that point in the proceedings, take entire charge of the latter; a majority of the whole number of the votes cast of qualified electors within and without the municipality determines the question of annexation; the county pays the expenses of the election; and thus a record of the new boundaries is made with the commissioners, but not with the secretary of state. Section 10 of the act would seem to make it applicable only to cities having a population of 10,000 or upwards. Thus stood the law until March 27th, when the second act, the title of which has been given, was approved, and, under its emergency clause, went into immediate effect. Section 9 of this latter act commences with these words: "The boundaries of any municipal corporation may be altered, and new territory included therein, after proceedings had as required in this section;" and follows with a complete method of proceeding on that subject. It is to be regretted, however that the legislature did not add to the above-quoted sentence the words "and not otherwise," or other equivalent words,...