La France Fire Engine Co. v. Davis

• Decision Date: 18 October 1894
• Citation: 9 Wash. 600,38 P. 154
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: LA FRANCE FIRE-ENGINE CO. v. DAVIS, TREASURER.

38 P. 154

9 Wash. 600

LA FRANCE FIRE-ENGINE CO. v. DAVIS, TREASURER.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 18, 1894

Appeal from superior court, Skagit county; Henry McBride, Judge.

Action by the La France Fire-Engine Company against E. D. Davis, as treasurer of the town of Mt. Vernon, to enjoin the prior payment of city warrants issued subsequently to warrants held by plaintiff. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J Henry Smith, for appellant.

Million & Houser, for respondent.

HOYT J.

It appears from the record in this case that the town of Mt Vernon, being indebted in a sum in excess of 1 1/2 per cent. of the valuation of its property, incurred an indebtedness to the respondent, and issued its warrants for such indebtedness; that subsequently the common council of said town regularly submitted the question of the validation of such warrants to the qualified voters of the town, at an election called therefor, at which election the warrants were duly validated; that such submission was under the provisions of Ordinance No. 73; that by virtue of Ordinance No. 74 the question of funding the indebtedness then existing against the town was also submitted at the same election, and the proposition ratified as required by law; that subsequent to the date of the warrants so validated the city had incurred additional indebtedness, and issued warrants therefor; that the bonds proposed to be issued in the funding proceedings had never been negotiated, and that the treasurer of said town was threatening to apply moneys which had or should come into his hands to the payment of warrants issued since such election, to the exclusion of those warrants issued before and duly validated. This was a proceeding by which such action on his part was sought to be restrained. The superior court granted the relief prayed for, and the town has prosecuted this appeal.

It is conceded in the brief of the appellant that the ratification of the invalid indebtedness had the same force and effect that the assent and authorization by vote of the electors would have had, if taken prior to the incurring of the same and that upon such vote each warrant became a valid obligation from the date of its issue, but he suggests two reasons why the judgment of the lower court should be reversed. The first is that prior to the act of March 9 1893, there was no law requiring warrants to be paid in any particular...