Gladwin v. Ames

• Decision Date: 05 January 1903
• Citation: 30 Wash. 608,71 P. 189
• Parties: GLADWIN v. AMES, Treasurer, et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

71 P. 189

30 Wash. 608

GLADWIN v. AMES, Treasurer, et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 5, 1903

Appeal from superior court, Spokane county.

Action by R. S. Gladwin against A. L. Ames, treasurer of the city of Cheney, and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Robertson Miller & Rosenhaupt, for appellants.

Danson & Huneke, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

The statement of this case is found in 26 Wash., at page 272, 66 P. 391. The question at issue was the legality of certain warrants issued by the town of Chency; the record showing that at the time of the issue of the warrants the municipality exceeded the limit of its indebtedness under the constitutional limitation of 1 1/2 per centum, and that no election had been held to validate any of the indebtedness. It was decided in that case that the rule announced by this court in Rauch v Chapman, 16 Wash. 568, 48 P. 253, 36 L. R. A. 407, 58 Am. St. Rep. 52, in relation to the validity of warrants for necessary expenses in a county, applied to municipal corporations such as the town of Cheney. It was also decided that warrants for the services of policemen marshals, and treasurers come within the requirement of necessities. But it was found that the findings of fact of the court were not specific as to the purposes for which all the warrants in controversy were issued, and the case was remanded, with instructions to the superior court to find the nature of all obligations for which the warrants in suit were issued, and directed that those issued for necessary expenses in maintaining the existence of the municipality be adjudged valid. In obedience to this mandate, the court has made findings and adjudged the validity of certain warrants, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The warrants described in subdivisions 'b,' 'e,' 'f,' 'g,' 'j,' and 'k,' of the findings, to which exceptions were taken by appellants were issued for labor and material furnished in the building of a city jail. It seems too plain for argument that, considering the well-authenticated and well-known history of crime, it is absolutely necessary for the protection, and therefore for the existence of the city, that some provision should be made for the compulsory detention of criminals. Subdivision 'm' refers to the warrant issued for guarding quarantine patients. Surely the protection of the health of the citizen from contagion is an...