Hansen v. Harris

• Decision Date: 16 January 1923
• Docket Number: 17588.
• Citation: 212 P. 171,123 Wash. 109
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: HANSEN et al. v. HARRIS et al. (ERLANDSEN et al., Interveners.

212 P. 171

123 Wash. 109

HANSEN et al. v. HARRIS et al. (ERLANDSEN et al., Interveners.

No. 17588.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 16, 1923

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court Kitsap County; Walter M. French, Judge.

Action by C. B. Hansen and others against E. T. Harris and others as the Board of County Commissioners of Kitsap County, and others, in which Peder Erlandsen and others intervened. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant Commissioners appeal. Reversed, with directions to dismiss.

Ray Greenwood, of Bremerton (Chadwick, McMicken, Ramsey & Rupp of Seattle, of counsel), for appellants.

F. S Thorp, Lewie Williams, and W. B. Severyns, all of Seattle, for respondents.

TOLMAN J.

This is an appeal by the county commissioners of Kitsap county from a judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate directing them, as a board, to proceed at once to improve, build, and construct Donohue Road No. 1 of Kitsap county, in accordance with a resolution made by the board on May 17, 1920.

It appears that on January 5, 1920, a petition was filed by sufficient of the property owners interested, praying for the improvement and repair of a certain existing and established highway on Bainbridge Island, under what is known as the Donohue Act. Upon the filing of the petition the board made and entered a resolution fixing February 3, 1920, as the time for a hearing thereon, and directing that notice be given. The county engineer made a preliminary survey, and filed his report at or before the time of the hearing, wherein he found the project to be feasible, and recommended a graded and gravelled road. Upon the hearing, no objections or protests being made, the board ordered that the road, to be known as Donohue Highway No. 1, be improved in accordance with the prayer of the petition. The county engineer was directed to proceed with the engineering work necessary, and he thereafter made a survey of the road, prepared profiles, maps, plans, and specifications, and an estimate of the costs of construction and improvement of the highway, and also made certain recommendations concerning deviations from the existing lines of the highway, such as he deemed to be of advantage. On May 17, 1920, without any previous notice, and without any public hearing on the matters contained in the engineer's report, the board adopted a resolution approving the plans, specifications, etc., as prepared and submitted by the county engineer, and directed that the improvement be made under the provisions of the Donohue Act. These plans called for the construction of the road over a route deviating materially from the route described in the original petition, and the board now contends that the cost thereof will greatly exceed the cost of building or improving over the original route. On August 16, 1920, an order was made calling for bids upon the proposed work, notice thereof was published, and on the same day appraisers were appointed, and the engineer's report placed in their hands. Thereafter the board created an improvement fund, directed the issuance of bonds to the amount of $60,000, received bids and sold the bonds, and on December 6, 1920, entered into a contract for the improvement based upon unit prices, and reserving the right, on the recommendation of the county engineer, to increase or diminish the amount of work to be done under the plans theretofore adopted. In the meantime, and on October 18, 1920, a protest was filed with the board signed by a large number of property owners affected, protesting against the improvement being made upon the line as surveyed, because of the high and unjustifiable cost occasioned by the deviations from the existing highway. About the same time other property owners petitioned the board to start work on the road in accordance with the approved plans. On December 20, 1920, without any general notice, the board considered proposed changes in the route, but made none.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that the appraisers filed any report prior to May 17, 1921. Under that date the minutes of the board first mention such a report, and fix a future time for a hearing thereon, and thereafter such report was set for hearing on January 3, 1922, and due notice given. On that date the board at a public hearing, and for the first time, accorded an opportunity for all parties interested to submit evidence as to the costs and benefits respectively of the two plans. After hearing the evidence the board adopted a resolution reciting all of the steps theretofore taken, and that sufficient evidence had then been received to enable the board to determine all pertinent matters, and thereupon it was resolved that the engineer's plans as adopted on May 17, 1920, be modified and changed so as to comply with the route described in the original petition, and that the contractors, on receipt of the revised plans, proceed at once with the work under the terms of their contract.

These facts (and others) having been stipulated, that action brought by respondents to compel...