City of Spokane v. Spokane County, 25196.

• Decision Date: 26 September 1934
• Docket Number: 25196.
• Parties: CITY OF SPOKANE v. SPOKANE COUNTY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

36 P.2d 311

179 Wash. 130

CITY OF SPOKANE v. SPOKANE COUNTY.

No. 25196.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 26, 1934

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Wm. A. Huneke, Judge.

Action by the City of Spokane against Spokane County. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

C. W. Greenough and A. O. Colburn, both of Spokane, for appellant.

G. M Ferris and Louis Conyard, both of Spokane, for respondent.

A. C Van Soelen and John A. Homer, both of Seattle, amici curiae.

GERAGHTY Justice.

In this action the city of Spokane seeks recovery from Spokane county of a portion of certain remittances received by the county from the state treasurer pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of chapter 41, page 212, of the 1933 Session Laws, as amended by chapter 168 passed at a later date in that session.

Chapter 88, p. 159, of the 1920 Session Laws, provided for the collection of an additional excise tax of one cent per gallon on liquid fuel, and the payment of the sum realized therefrom into a fund in the state treasury to be known as the lateral highway fund. The moneys coming into this fund were to be credited to the various counties of the state in the manner and in the proportions set out in section 5 of the act. The plan of division to the counties contained a proviso that one-third of the money to which any first class county was entitled should be placed in the lateral highway fund to the credit of first class cities within such county, to be spent by the governing authorities of the cities for the construction or improvement of atterial streets or highways leading to and connecting, directly or indirectly, with any state highway.

Chapter 41 of the 1933 Session Laws revised or repealed many of the then existing statutory provisions relating to public highways, and specifically amended section 5 of chapter 88. The section as amended retained the provision for the collection of an additional one cent gasoline tax, payable into the lateral highway fund. It also provided for the transfer to this fund of certain moneys from the motor vehicle fund. As provided in the amended section 5, the lateral highway fund was to be distributed during the period ending July 1, 1933, in the manner provided for in the original section, including as distribution to first class cities in the first class counties. For the period beginning January 1, 1934, and ending March 31, 1935, chapter 41 provided that all moneys accruing to the lateral highway fund should be credited to the counties of the state in accordance with a schedule of percentages specified in the act. Then followed one of the provisions involved in the present controversy: 'From the monies remitted to the respective counties under the provisions of this section there shall be paid to the first, second and third class cities, and cities with a commission form of government whose population would entitle them to at least the rank of third class cities, within each respective county, an amount of money equal to ten one-hundredths of one per cent of the assessed valuation of such city or town, which money shall be expended by the governing authorities of such cities and towns for the construction and/or maintenance of any street or highway therein, such expenditure to be made either independently or in conjunction with any other monies that may be provided by such cities and towns.'

Later in the 1933 session, chapter 168, p. 633, was passed, again amending section 5 in some of its features, but retaining the provision for payment to cities of the first, second, and third classes, and adding another proviso as follows: 'Provided further, That the county commissioners of any county in this state shall pay from the money remitted to it under the provisions of this section to any first, second or third class city or city with a commission form of government whose population would entitle it to at least the rank of a third class city within such county, and additional ten-hundredths of one per cent, which shall be expended by such city for the payment of interest or principal of warrants or bonds issued or to be issued for the condemnation of property for, or the construction of, roads, street or bridges within such city, or for any other proper road or street purpose.'

Pursuant to these statutory provisions, the state treasurer made remittances to Spokane county for the months of January, February, and March, 1934. The city of Spokane made demand upon the county for its share under the law of the sums so remitted from the lateral highway fund, and, upon the refusal of the county to make payment, this suit was instituted. The case was tried to the court, and judgment rendered in favor of the city. This appeal follows.

The county, while itself taking under the law, contends that the provisions requiring it to share with the city are invalid for several reasons. The principal objection made is that the title of the chapter is not sufficiently definite to apprise the public of the matter contained in the act; it being urged that in the title the term 'public roads' is used, conveying the implication that the act has relation to county roads solely, and that therefore the provision for distribution to the cities for use upon streets is not within its purview.

In considering the three acts here involved, that is to say chapter 88, p. 159, of the 1929 session, and chapters 41 and 168, pp. 208, 633, of the 1933 session, we find that in the title to chapter 88 the term 'public highways' is used; in chapter 41 the term 'public roads'; and again in chapter 168 the term 'public highways.' In these several acts, dealing generally with the same subject-matter, the Legislature has used the terms 'public roads' and 'public highways' interchangeably and as synonymous; and this use of the terms is found throughout the whole body of our highway laws. So, too, the terms have been...