Hayes v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 08 June 1922
• Docket Number: 17004.
• Citation: 120 Wash. 372,207 P. 607
• Parties: HAYES v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

207 P. 607

120 Wash. 372

HAYES v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al.

No. 17004.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 8, 1922

Department 1.

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

Action by G. E. Hayes against the City of Seattle and others. From the judgment, defendants appeal, and plaintiff files cross-appeal. Affirmed.

Walter F. Meier, Edwin C. Ewing, and Charles T. Donworth, all of Seattle, for appellants.

J. L Corrigan, of Seattle, for respondent.

BRIDGES J.

In 1919 the city of Seattle, being desirous of making betterments and extensions to its municipal street car system, passed Ordinance No. 39492, pursuant to sections 8005-8008, Rem. Code. Section 3 of that ordinance adopted a certain plan or system for such betterments and extensions. The system so adopted contemplated some 24 extensions and betterments. Among the other extensions was one to construct a single track 'on East Fifty-Fifth street, between Twenty-Ninth Avenue Northeast and Thirty-Fifth Avenue Northeast, together with a wye near the intersection of East Fifty-Fifth street and Thirty-Fifth Avenue Northeast.' The ordinance further provided that bonds in the sum of $790,000 should be issued and sold for the purpose of making such contemplated improvements, and that all moneys received from the sale of such bonds should be placed in a designated fund, and that all bonds should be paid only from that fund and that the bonds did not create any general indebtedness against the city. After many of the bonds had been sold and some of the contemplated work done, the city decided not to extend its line east on Fifty-Fifth street, as provided in the original plan, but instead to extend it north on Thirtieth Avenue Northeast. The plaintiff instituted this action to enjoin the construction of the extension on Thirtieth Avenue Northeast, and to require the construction on East Fifty-Fifth street, as designated by the original ordinance. The trial court enjoined the city from making the extension on Thirtieth Avenue Northeast, but refused to command the city to build such extension on East Fifty-Fifth. Both parties have appealed.

The plaintiff sought to maintain his action as a taxpayer property owner, and bondholder. It is not necessary for us to determine whether he can maintain the action as an owner of property or as a taxpayer, because we are of the opinion that he can maintain it as the holder of one or more of the bonds issued by the city under the original ordinance. It is true the plaintiff bought his bond only a few days before he instituted this action, and after the city had passed its ordinance undertaking to change this extension of the street railway from East Fifty-Fifth street to Thirtieth Avenue Northeast; but these facts cannot alter the situation. The time of purchasing the bond has nothing to do with the right to maintain the action. The bonds themselves expressly provide that----

The city 'covenants with the holder of this bond that it will keep and perform all of the covenants and promises in said ordinances contained, to be by it kept and performed.'

Any bondholder has the right to maintain an action to require the city to live up to the terms of his bond. If one bondholder cannot do this, then the holders of all the bonds could not do it, and thus the city might, with impunity, violate the covenants of its bonds.

The more difficult question is: Can the city at this time make the change proposed by it--can it extend...