Hansard v. Green

• Decision Date: 14 July 1909
• Citation: 103 P. 40,54 Wash. 161
• Parties: HANSARD v. GREEN et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

103 P. 40

54 Wash. 161

HANSARD v. GREEN et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 14, 1909

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Lincoln County; W. T. Warren Judge.

Action by T. A. Hansard against the Town of Harrington, in which John F. Green and others intervened. From a decree for interveners, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Merritt Oswald & Merritt, for appellant.

Happy &amp Hindman and Martin & Grant, for respondents.

CHADWICK J.

Plaintiff brought this action as a taxpayer to enjoin the issuance of certain municipal bonds. The town made no appearance, and an order of default was entered. The defendants John F. Green, M. F. Adams, and A. G. Mitchum are copartners doing business under the firm name and style of the Bank of Harrington, at Harrington, Wash., and were allowed to intervene, alleging themselves to be taxpayers and property owners within the town of Harrington. The interveners alleged in their petition for leave to intervene 'that in the year 1907, at a special election held in the said town of Harrington, over three-fourths of the qualified voters of said town voted to purchase a water system and to issue bonds for the payment therefor, to supply said town with water, and to pay therefor the said sum of twenty-two thousand dollars ($22,000), and to issue bonds for said sum; and that after said election was held and carried, at the special instance and request of the said town of Harrington, the said owner of said water system, Olner Dobson, deeded said waterworks to said town, and said town is now and ever since has been in possession thereof, and collecting the revenues therefrom; that at the time said system was conveyed to the said town these interveners, at the special instance and request of the said town and said Olner Dobson, paid to the said Dobson the said sum of $22,000 in cash money, and the said town, with the consent of the said Dobson and of the interveners, promised and agreed to transfer and deliver the said $22,000 of bonds when printed and executed to these interveners in payment of the said sum of $22,000 so paid over to the said Dobson by these interveners at the special instance and request of the said town of Harrington; and the said bonds have not yet been delivered to these interveners, as promised, but the said T. C. Hansard, plaintiff in the above-entitled action, is now seeking to enjoin the said town from executing and delivering the said bonds to these interveners.'

The foregoing is a succinct statement of the ultimate facts upon which the interveners rely, and we do not deem it necessary to make further mention of, or reference to, their complaint in intervention. To the complaint in intervention a motion to strike was interposed, upon the grounds, inter alia: '(2) For the reason that said interveners have no right, title, or interest in and to the subject-matter of this action, to wit, the right of said town or its officers to issue and sell said bonds, for the reason that said interveners could not have or acquire any interest in said bonds, although said bonds could be issued until said bonds were sold as by law provided. (3) For the reason that if the interveners have, or ever did have, the contract and arrangement as alleged in their complaint, whereby said bonds were to be turned over and delivered to them, such contract would be in contravention of law, the specific provisions of the statute of the state of Washington and against public policy.' This motion was overruled. After other proceedings, all of which occurred over the protest of plaintiff, the case proceeded to trial upon the complaint, complaint in intervention, and denials of plaintiff, and, after hearing the evidence, the court ordered that plaintiff take nothing, and rendered judgment in favor of the interveners for their costs and disbursements.

A number of errors are assigned, but from the view of the case taken by us it is unnecessary to discuss any of them other than those going to the full merit of the case. Waiving the question whether a...