Dalton v. Clarke
| Decision Date | 28 June 1943 |
| Docket Number | 29045. |
| Citation | 18 Wn.2d 322,139 P.2d 291 |
| Parties | DALTON v. CLARKE et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Action by John T. Dalton against Caspar W. Clarke and others, as the Transportation Commission of the City of Seattle, and others to test the validity of a contract for construction of an addition to a terminal station of the city's transit system. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Chester A. batchelor, judge.
Caldwell Lycette & Diamond, of Seattle, for appellant.
Holman Sprague & Allen and Emory E. Hess, all of Seattle, for Austin Co., respondent.
A. C Van Soelen and J. Ambler Newton, both of Seattle, for other respondents.
This action was brought by John T. Dalton, a resident taxpayer of Seattle, against the members of the transportation commission of that city, the municipality, a number of its officials, and The Austin Company, a corporation, to test the validity of a contract entered into between the city, acting by its transportation commission, and The Austin Company for the construction of an addition to the north Seattle terminal station of the city's transit system to provide housing facilities for transportation equipment. The theory advanced by the complaint is that the contract has been awarded on a cost-plus basis with a guaranteed maximum, and that neither the board of public works nor the transportation commission called for bids for the construction of the improvement, and, therefore, such a contract is illegal according to the statutes of Washington and the charter of the city.
Upon the filing of the complaint, a show cause order was issued by the court. On the return day, the defendant appeared and answered the complaint. An agreed statement of facts was filed and presented to the court, and, after hearing argument of counsel, the trial judge rendered his decision to the effect that the plaintiff, as a private citizen, could not maintain such an action as he had brought for the reason that he had not shown by pleading or proof that he had any interest in the subject matter of the action different from any other member of the general public, nor would he suffer any damage as a taxpayer; also, the transportation commission had the power and authority to enter into the contract for the construction of the improvement without calling for bids thereon. A judgment was entered dismissing the action, from which the plaintiff has taken this appeal.
Seattle is a city of the first class, having a population of more than there hundred thousand, and it operates pursuant to the statutes of Washington relating to such cities and a charter. The city acquired, and operates, a transportation system. Prior to the passage and taking effect of chapter 47, Laws of 1939, P. 142, Rem.Rev.Stat.Supp., § 9488-6 et seq., the transportation system seems to have been managed and operated by and under the direction of its board of public works.
Art. VIII, § 14, of the city charter provides: 'All public improvements to be made or supplies to be purchased by contract shall be let to the lowest bidder therefor; * * * Before awarding any such contract the board of public works shall cause to be published in the official newspaper of the city a notice for at least ten (10) days Before the letting of such contract, inviting sealed proposals for such work. * * *' (Italics ours.)
Art. IX, § 19, provides:
'The purchasing agent shall make all purchases of supplies, materials and equipment, in the manner provided by ordinance, for all departments and agencies of the city government including the park and library departments. * * *
'Before making any purchase or sale, the purchasing agent shall be required to secure bids under such rules and regulations and subject to such exceptions as the counsel may by ordinance prescribe.
Chapter 47 of the Laws of 1939, p. 142, is entitled as follows: 'An Act relating to municipally owned street railway or surface transportation systems in cities having more than three hundred thousand population; providing for the borrowing of money from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation or any other agency of the United States government for street railway and surface transportation purposes in such cities, and for the issuance of bonds payable from the revenues of such systems to evidence such loans, the proceeds thereof to be used for the purpose of purchasing and acquiring equipment and extensions, repairs, improvements and betterments to, and the operation of, said systems, and to refund outstanding indebtedness payable from the revenues of said system, to validate all such outstanding indebtedness and to create transportation commissions in such cities, and to prescribe the powers and duties thereof, and to repeal all laws or parts of laws and the provisions of any city charter in conflict herewith in so far as such conflict exists.'
The act, as a whole, embodies a new and comprehensive plan for the financing of, and adding to, purchasing, acquiring, construction, extending, improving, bettering, operating, and maintaining municipally owned street railway or surface transportation systems in cities having a population of over three hundred thousand inhabitants, as well as the purchasing of trolley and motor busses and other equipment, and the extension, repair, improvement, and betterment of the system.
By § 5 of the act, p. 149, Rem.Rev.Stat.Supp., § 9488-10, there is created in each city affected a 'transportation commission'; but such commission cannot transact any business or exercise any of the powers granted to it unless and until three conditions precedent are complied with: (1) The city council, or other governing body thereof, shall so order; (2) the city shall contract a loan from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, or any other agency of the federal government; and (3) the city shall provide for the issuance of bonds to evidence such loan.
By § 5, p. 150, Rem.Rev.Stat.Supp., § 9488-10, the transportation commission, when authorized to function, is given the authority, among other things, to:
'(b) Make all rules and regulations governing the operation of the street railway and surface transportation facilities owned and operated by such city, and shall have complete control of all the employees of said system subject to the civil service provisions of the charter of any such city.
'(c) Have all superintendence, control and management of the facilities, equipment and property now or hereafter used and employed in furnishing surface transportation in such city. * * *
'(e) From time to time determine the type, character and amount of new equipment, extensions, betterments and improvements to such system. * * *
'(g) Control and manage, in accordance with any covenants contained in any ordinance, resolution or other agreement adopted or entered into in connection with the issuance of bonds pursuant to this act and in accordance with the provisions of the charter of any such city to the extent that such charter provisions are not in conflict with such covenants, such street railway and surface transportation system and all revenues derived from the operation thereof, and no moneys shall be withdrawn from the revenues of said system without the approval of said commission, * * *.'
The act further provides that such transportation system shall continue in existence, and shall have the powers and perform the duties therein provided, for so long as any bonds issued pursuant thereto are outstanding and unpaid and that it shall be complete authority for the issuance of the bonds thereby authorized, and any restrictions, limitations, or regulations relative to the issuance of such bonds contained in any other act shall not apply to the bonds issued under the act; and that the act shall repeal any other act in conflict therewith and shall supersede the provisions of any conflicting city charter. Authority is given to include in any ordinance or resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds covenants on the part of the city to protect and safeguard the security and rights of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Northwest Magnesite Co.
...985, this court held that county officers had the implied power to purchase necessary supplies for their offices. In Dalton v. Clarke, 18 Wash.2d 322, 139 P.2d 291, 295, appeared that the Seattle transportation commission by authority of Rem.Rev.Stat. (Sup.) § 9488-6 contracted for improvem......
-
Tuerk v. State, Dept. of Licensing
...206 P.2d 456 (1949) (quoting State ex rel. R.R. Comm'n v. Great N. Ry. Co., 68 Wash. 257, 123 P. 8 (1912)). See Dalton v. Clarke, 18 Wash.2d 322, 331-32, 139 P.2d 291 (1943). Likewise, implied authority is found where an agency is charged with a specific duty, but the means of accomplishing......
-
Griswold v. Ramsey County
...Starkey v. City of Minneapolis, 19 Minn. 203, Gil. 166; Elliot v. Minneapolis City, 59 Minn. 111, 60 N.W. 1081; Dalton v. Clarke, 18 Wash.2d 322, 329, 139 P.2d 291, 294; Reiter v. Chapman, 177 Wash. 392, 396, 31 P.2d 1005, 1007, 92 A.L.R. 828; 13 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 6707; 43 Am.Jur., Pu......
-
State ex rel. Billington v. Sinclair
... ... Superior Court, 14 Wash. 604, 45 P. 23, 33 L.R.A ... 674; State ex rel. Seattle v. Carson, 6 Wash. 250, ... 33 P. 428; Dalton v. Clarke, 18 Wash.2d 322, 139 ... P.2d 291 ... [28 ... Wn.2d 589] We recently held that so long as the legislature ... ...