Faulkner v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 16 May 1898
• Citation: 19 Wash. 320,53 P. 365
• Parties: FAULKNER v. CITY OF SEATTLE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

53 P. 365

19 Wash. 320

FAULKNER v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 16, 1898

Appeal from superior court, King county; William Hickman Moore Judge.

Action by George M. Faulkner against the city of Seattle. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

W. T Scott, for appellant.

W. E Humphrey and Edward Von Tobel, for respondent.

SCOTT C.J.

This action was brought to enjoin the city from proceeding with the construction of a waterworks improvement, known as the "Cedar River Gravity System." The appeal is from a judgment sustaining a general demurrer to the complaint. In October, 1895, an ordinance was passed providing for an election to submit the question as to whether the city should make certain additions to an existing pumping system then in use and owned by the city, the proposed additions being set forth in detail, together with the proposed manner of payment for the construction thereof. The election resulting favorably to the proposed scheme, thereafter another ordinance was passed providing for the condemnation and acquisition of property for the purpose of constructing said system as outlined in the previous ordinance, and appropriating $1,000 to pay certain preliminary expenses. The ordinance further provided for the letting of a contract for the construction of the system, and the issuance of bonds, payable from a fund to be derived by setting aside 75 per cent. of the gross receipts of the system, and that the contract should contain a provision that the contractor should take all warrants issued by the city in payment of any and all real-estate rights, easements, and privileges necessary to the prosecution of the work, at par. But the ordinance contained the further provision that "payment for all such real-estate rights, easements, and privileges shall be made from sums obtained by the sale of warrants to the contractor as hereinbefore provided by this section, or from such other funds as the city council shall provide." The contract has not been let, but the city was about to proceed to obtain rights of way, etc., preliminary thereto.

The appellant contends for a reversal of the judgment on the grounds that the construction of said system would create a debt against the city, and that it is indebted in an amount exceeding the constitutional limit; also because the conditions precedent provided in the ordinance for obtaining the funds necessary for the improvement have not been complied with, and that the fund is not in existence, and cannot come into existence, until the completion and acceptance of the improvements, and until that time there could be no money in the fund against which warrants could be drawn for the costs and expenses connected therewith; and also for the reason that the question was never submitted to the electors, the proposed improvements not being an addition, but being a change of system. It is conceded that bonds issued only against a fund to be created from the revenues of the system would not create a debt against the city. Winston v. City of Spokane, 12 Wash. 524,...