George v. City of Anacortes

• Decision Date: 27 March 1928
• Docket Number: 20960.
• Citation: 147 Wash. 242,265 P. 477
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: GEORGE et al. v. CITY OF ANACORTES et al.

265 P. 477

147 Wash. 242

GEORGE et al. v. CITY OF ANACORTES et al.

No. 20960.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 27, 1928

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Skagit County; Geo. A. Joiner, Judge.

Action by J. George and others against the City of Anacortes, a municipal corporation, and Marion Watkinson, as Treasurer thereof. From a restraining order, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Ben Driftmier, of Anacortes, for appellants.

R. V Wetts, of Mt. Vernon, for respondents.

ASKREN J.

The city of Anacortes, being desirous of improving its municipally owned water system, adopted an ordinance which provided, among other things, that----

'Said city shall construct a 10-in. wooden main on 20th street to connect the present 16-in. main on J avenue with the present 8-in. main on R avenue. * * *'

The cost of the projected improvement being approximately $50,000, it was decided to issue bonds to pay for the same and an election was held to secure authority of the voters for the improvement and sale of the bonds. The notice of election and the printed ballot used read as follows:

'Shall the city of Anacortes, Washington, make additions and betterments to its existing municipal waterworks system as follows, by constructing a 10-in. wooden main on 20th street to connect the present 16-in. main on J avenue with the present 8-in. main on R avenue, by installing an electric pump at the presents location of the dam on Deutch ravine to pump water therefrom to the present filter, by installing an 8-in. wooden pipe line on Dober's road to connect the present Heart Lake pipe line with the present filter, by installing two additional filter units of 500,000 gal. per day each, by installing 500 additional water meters, and by acquiring all necessary easements, rights of way, and all other property necessary in connection therewith?'

The cost of the 10-inch main on Twentieth street was estimated to be about $5,700. After the voters approved the project, work was begun. However, no main was laid on Twentieth street as provided in the ordinance. Instead, work was commenced on the laying of a 10-inch main in Seventeenth street, which is about 900 feet distant from Twentieth. This work was done without any vote being taken by the council, but it appears to have been the result of the matter being taken up with them individually.

When it became apparent that no main was to be laid on Twentieth street and that the main in Seventeenth street, although not provided for in the plan of the improvement, was to be paid for out of the proceeds of the sale of the bonds issued, the plaintiffs brought this action to restrain the city from using any of the funds derived from the sale of the bonds for the construction of a main on Seventeenth street, and for an order requiring the city to construct the main on Twentieth street as specified in the ordinance approved by the voters.

Upon hearing, the court issued its restraining order substantially in the form asked for in the complaint, and this appeal followed.

The appeal presents two questions for decision. The first is, Did the court err in restraining the city from using the funds voted to construct a main on Twentieth street to pay for a main on Seventeenth street? Appellant urges that the change of the location of the main is but a minor incident in the progress of the work, and that therefore there has been no change in the plan provided by ordinance and approved by the people. But we can hardly say that the...