Dirks v. Collin

• Decision Date: 24 March 1905
• Citation: 37 Wash. 620,79 P. 1112
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: DIRKS v. COLLIN et al.

79 P. 1112

37 Wash. 620

DIRKS v. COLLIN et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 24, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Henry L. Kennan, Judge.

Suit by John L. Dirks against George H. Collin and others, as commissioners of Spokane county, and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

E. C Macdonald, for appellant.

Horace Kimball and Miles Poindexter, for respondents.

MOUNT C.J.

This action was brought by a texpayer to enjoin the respondents as county officers of Spokane county, from keeping in the auditor's office, at public expense, a set of books known as 'tract indices,' upon the ground that such books were not authorized by law. Upon the trial of the case the court below found that the county auditor kept and maintained such a set of books at public expense, but also found that such books were a public utility, and that their abolishment would make more expense to the county than the maintenance of the books. The court therefore concluded that the maintenance of the tract indices is not an injury to the appellant, and dismissed the action. The appeal is from this order.

In the case of Smith v. Lamping, 27 Wash 624, 68 P. 195, where a contract had been entered into by the board of county commissioners of King county for the preparation of tract indices such as the ones kept by Spokane county, now in question, we held that the county board had no authority to enter into such a contract, because the Legislature had provided for the kind of indices to be kept by the county auditor in his office, and there was no authority for a different method to be prepared or kept at public expense. In the course of that opinion, speaking to this point, we said at page 635 of 27 Wash., page 199 of 68 Pac.: 'It is not reasonable to suppose that when the Legislature so carefully described the system that should be followed by county auditors, and which should be uniform throughout the state, it at the same time intended to authorize county commissioners to expend large sums to maintain other and different systems. The fact that a certain mode or method has been expressly designated by the Legislature, we think, excludes the idea that a different mode or method may be pursued. The Legislature has not only prescribed the method, but was expressly made it the duty of the county auditor to follow it; and this, we think, negatives the idea that another method may be pursued at public expense by authority of the county commissioners. The new method may be more convenient and more in accordance with the enlightenment and enterprise of the times, but, until the Legislature has authorized its adoption, and conferred upon county commissioners the power to expend public money for that purpose, we think it must be held that it is beyond their power to so expend the county's funds.' We think that case is conclusive of the question presented on this appeal.

Counsel for respondents contend, however, that under the provisions of sections 417, 418, 1 Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St., which are as follows:

'Sec. 417. The auditor must, upon the application of any person, and upon the payment or tender of the fees therefor, make searches for conveyances, mortgages, and all other instruments, papers, or notices recorded or filed in his office, and furnish a certificate thereof, stating the names of the parties to

...