Farwell v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 19 July 1906
• Citation: 86 P. 217,43 Wash. 141
• Parties: FARWELL v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

86 P. 217

43 Wash. 141

FARWELL v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 19, 1906

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Arthur E. Griffin, Judge.

Action by P. W. Farwell against the city of Seattle and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

John W Roberts, for appellant.

Scott Calhoun, for respondents.

HADLEY J.

This is an action to enjoin the authorities of the city of Seattle from entering into contracts to furnish water to the city of Ballard, and to cancel an existing contract on that subject. The corporate capacity of both cities is alleged, and it is shown that the plaintiff is a resident citizen and taxpayer of the city of Seattle; that he is a user and consumer of water furnished from the city water system of said city, and that he and other inhabitants pay for water supplied to them a fixed rate or charge established by the city; that the plaintiff brings this action in his own behalf, and of any and all taxpayers of said city who may desire to join with him by intervention or otherwise. It is averred that prior to March 15, 1902, said city by virtue of its authority under the laws of Washington constructed a water system generally known as the 'Cedar River Water System,' for the purpose of furnishing said city and its inhabitants with an adequate supply of water; that said system was at the above-mentioned time, ever since has been and now is owned and operated by said city and is the source of its water supply; that on said 15th day of March, 1902 the city of Seattle by ordinance directed its board of public works to enter into a contract with the city of Ballard whereby the former city should agree to furnish the latter one a supply of water at and for the price of $60 per 1,000,000 gallons for all water so furnished; that such a contract was afterwards entered into between the two cities, and the city of Seattle did furnish water to the city of Ballard upon the terms named, until on or about the 8th day of June, 1905; that on the last-named date the city board of public works, having been directed so to do by ordinance of the city of Seattle, entered into another contract with the city of Ballard, which by its terms extends until June 1, 1913; that by said contract the city of Seattle has sought to bind itself to furnish to the city of Ballard continuously and uninterruptedly a supply of water at rates varying according to the amount of water supplied in any calendar month, and that the same has since been continuously, and is now, being so supplied from the said Cedar river water system. It is further alleged that the municipality of Ballard is a nonresident of the city of Seattle, and is not an inhabitant thereof; that it does not transact any of its corporate business or any business within the corporate limits of the city of Seattle; that the water being so furnished and so agreed to be furnished is being, and will be, furnished and delivered outside and beyond the corporate limits of the city of Seattle, and within the corporate limits of the city of Ballard. It is also alleged that in order for the city of Seattle to comply with the terms of its said agreement, it became necessary for the city to expend, and that it did expend, large sums of money in extending and building its water mains without and beyond the corporate limits of the city of Ballard, for the sole and only purpose of delivering water outside of the corporate limits of Seattle, and to a municipal corporation not an inhabitant of Seattle; that large sums of money have been expended, and are being expended, to maintain such extended water system, to the great damage of the taxpaying and waterconsuming inhabitants of Seattle. It is alleged that the city of Seattle is about to enter into further contracts with the city of Ballard whereby the former city shall bind itself to further extend its water system without and beyond the corporate limits of Seattle and within the corporate limits of Ballard; that the city council of Seattle is threatening to pass, and unless restrained will pass, an additional ordinance directing the making of such additional contracts; that if further extensions are ordered and made, the necessary funds for that purpose will be misappropriated to the damage of plaintiff and all other taxpayers of the city of Seattle. The complaint concludes with the prayer for the cancellation of the existing contract, and for a permanent injunction against entering into other contracts as threatened. A general demurrer was interposed to the complaint, and the same was sustained. The plaintiff elected to stand upon his complaint, and judgment was entered dismissing the action. The plaintiff has appealed.

The only matter...