Cloud v. Town of Sumas

• Decision Date: 13 July 1894
• Citation: 9 Wash. 399,37 P. 305
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: CLOUD v. TOWN OF SUMAS.

37 P. 305

9 Wash. 399

CLOUD v. TOWN OF SUMAS.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 13, 1894

Appeal from superior court, Whatcom county; John R. Winn, Judge.

Action by J. A. Cloud against the town of Sumas to recover money loaned defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Dunbar C.J., dissenting.

Chambers & Lambert and Black & Leaming, for appellant.

Ronald & Piles, for respondent.

SCOTT J.

In June, 1891, the town of Sumas became a municipal corporation of the fourth class. The town authorities, desiring to make certain public improvements, such as the grading of streets etc., and the town not having the money on hand to pay therefor, entered into negotiations with the plaintiff, who at that time was engaged in the banking business at said town, the result of which was an agreement between the town authorities and the plaintiff that the plaintiff would supply said town with moneys to the extent of not to exceed $5,000. Several warrants were issued by the town authorities to plaintiff, and the amount called for less a certain discount, was deposited in plaintiff's bank to the credit of the town, and these sums were thereafter paid out upon warrants issued to various parties by the town treasurer. This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover the moneys advanced to the credit of the town. He obtained judgment, and the town appeals.

A number of technical objections regarding the regularity of the proceedings of the council authorizing the obtaining of these moneys from the plaintiff are raised upon this appeal. It is also contended that municipal corporations of the fourth class have no authority to borrow money. And it is further contended that the present action will not lie in any event, as the remedy of the plaintiff, if he has any, is by mandamus, to compel the payment of the warrants issued to him for the moneys aforesaid. Owing to the conclusion we have arrived at as to this last proposition, whatever may be our views upon the other questions raised, as to whether any of them are entitled to any merit, or whether the transaction was one of loaning money, or, rather, the payment of debts contracted by the town to other parties, they are eliminated from the case, and are not now entitled to consideration. We are of the opinion that the plaintiff mistook his remedy. All he could obtain upon a judgment in his favor would be a warrant, issued by the town authorities for the payment of...