Douglas County v. Grant County

• Citation: 130 P. 366,72 Wash. 324
• Parties: DOUGLAS COUNTY v. GRANT COUNTY.
• Decision Date: 28 February 1913
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

130 P. 366

72 Wash. 324

DOUGLAS COUNTY v. GRANT COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 28, 1913

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Douglas County; Wm. A Grimshaw, Judge.

Action by Douglas County against Grant County. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Merritt, Oswald & Merritt, of Spokane, for appellant.

John W Hanna, of Waterville, for respondent.

CROW C.J.

In 1909 Grant county was organized from a portion of Douglas county by act of the Legislature (Session Laws 1909, c. 17, p. 19). Section 1 of the act fixed the boundaries of the new county. Section 2 reads as follows: 'The county of Grant shall assume and pay to the county of Douglas its proportion of the bonded and warrant indebtedness of Douglas county, in the proportions that the assessed valuation of that part of Grant county, lying within the present boundary of Douglas county, bears to the assessed valuation of the whole of Douglas county. The adjustment of said indebtedness shall be based on the assessment for the year 1908. * * *' The act contains no provision relative to the apportionment or division of any property, taxes, funds, or assets of Douglas county existing at the date of division. After the organization of Grant county had been perfected, its auditor and the auditor of Douglas county, assuming to act under the authority of sections 3826 and 3827, Rem. & Bal. Code, made a written agreement, compromise, and settlement wherein they scheduled the property, funds, real estate taxes, assets, and indebtedness of Douglas county, and as a net result finally determined that, under the sections mentioned and the act of 1909, Douglas county was indebted to Grant county in the total sum of $52,000, and that warrants upon certain funds of Douglas county should be issued to Grant county in payment thereof. Thereupon this action was commenced by Douglas county, against its auditor and against Grant county, to have the written agreement declared void, and to enjoin the issuance of the warrants. Findings were made upon the pleadings, and a final decree was entered enjoining the issuance of the warrants, and declaring the agreement to be null and void. Grant county has appealed.

The trial court found:

'That at the time the said act of the Legislature creating said Grant county went into effect and became operative, to wit, February 24, 1909, the said Douglas county had a bonded general indebtedness outstanding against it in the principal sum of $25,000, together with accrued interest thereon. * * * That, by virtue of the provisions of the legislative act creating the county of Grant, said Grant county was to pay to the county of Douglas a per centum of the indebtedness of said Douglas county, based upon the per centum of the assessed valuation of the taxable property of said Douglas county, as shown by the assessed valuation of that part of Grant county lying within the boundaries of Douglas county, provided that such indebtedness was not incurred in the purchase of any county property or in the purchase of any county building falling within or being retained by the other county; that 61.5 per cent. is the proportion of assessed valuation for the year 1908 of taxable property of the county of Douglas, which lies within the new county of Grant; that at the time of the creation of said Grant county, to wit, on the 24th day of February, 1909, Douglas county was and is now the sole owner and in possession of property, moneys, and assets as follows, to wit: One courthouse, jail, and grounds of the value of $35,000; furniture and fixtures in the various county offices of said courthouse of the total value of $5,552.05; 125 cords of wood of value of $937.50. Money on hand as follows: Cash in current expense fund, $27,403.88; cash in road and bridge fund, $1,704.39; cash in game protection fund, $1,093.05; cash in soldier's relief fund $208.35; cash in building fund, $807.47; uncollected bond redemption fund, $8,386.65; uncollected building fund tax, $763.61. Uncollected taxes on real estate tax roll as follows: Crrrent expense fund, $41,606.86; general road and bridge fund, $9,698.77. Uncollected taxes on personal tax roll of said county as follows: Current expense fund, $2,258.82; general road and bridge fund, $562.67. All of said described property, money, and assets being in said Douglas county.

'That on the 26th day of April, A. D. 1909, defendant T. Claud Bennett, then auditor of Douglas county, Wash., and J. H. Hill, then auditor of Grant county, Wash., made and entered into an agreement, by the terms of which said agreement Douglas county was to pay to said Grant county certain sums of money as specified and set out in said agreement, a copy of which is attached to plaintiff's amended complaint and made Exhibit 1 thereof; that the said action of the said T. Claud Bennett and J. H. Hill in entering into said agreement and in awarding the payment by said Douglas county to said Grant county of any sum of money or thing of value whatsoever, or the transfer from said Douglas county to said Grant county of any part of the property, moneys, or assets belonging to said Douglas county at the time of the creation of said Grant county, was null and void, wholly without authority of law, and in violation of the rights of said Douglas county; that the said county of Grant had no right, title, interest, or lawful claim in or to the whole or any part or of any item of the property, money, and assets belonging to said Douglas county at the time of the creation of said Grant county; and that said Douglas county is not indebted to said Grant county in any sum of money or thing of value whatsoever.

'That the said T. Claud Bennett, auditor of Douglas county, and the said J. H. Hill, auditor of Grant county, acted without warrant or authority in law in the purported settlement of the portion of the bonded indebtedness which Grant county was to assume and pay to Douglas county, as fixed by section 2 of the act creating Grant county, and that such purported settlement in null and void. That there has been no valid and legal settlement of the indebtedness between said Douglas and Grant counties; that there is no provision in the Constitution or laws of the state of Washington providing for the distribution of assets between an old and new county in the event of the creation of the new county out of territory embraced wholly within the boundaries of the old county, and no provision in the Constitution or statutes of the state of Washington prescribing or fixing a basis for such distribution; that the basis provided in the act creating Grant county for the ascertainment and division of the indebtedness was wholly disregarded by the auditors of the respective counties, Douglas and Grant, in the settlement entered into with reference thereto.'

These findings are sustained by the admitted allegations of the pleadings, and appellant had taken exceptions to only such portions of them as might be termed conclusions of law. The question now presented is whether the findings sustain the final decree. Section 3826, Rem. & Bal. Code, provides that 'The new county shall be liable for a reasonable proportion of the debts of the county from which it is taken, and entitled to its proportion of the property of the county.' Section 3827 provides that: 'The auditor of the old county shall give the auditor of the new county reasonable notice to meet him on a certain day at the county seat of the old county, or at some other convenient place, to settle upon and fix the amount which the new county shall pay. In doing so, they shall not charge either county with any share of debts arising from the erection of public buildings, or out of the construction of roads or bridges which shall be and remain, after the division, within the limits of the other county, and of the other debts they shall apportion to each county such a share of the...