Hesseltine v. Town of Wilbur

Decision Date19 August 1902
Citation69 P. 1094,29 Wash. 407
PartiesHESSELTINE v. TOWN OF WILBUR et al.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Appeal from superior court, Lincoln county; C. H. Neal, Judge.

Suit by E. A. Hesseltine against the town of Wilbur and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Martin & Grant, for appellant.

Myers &amp Warren, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, as a taxpayer, instituted this suit against the town of Wilbur and the respondents named, for the purpose of obtaining a restraining order and injunction, restraining and enjoining the respondents from selling or delivering certain bonds (more fully hereinafter described) for the building of waterworks in the town of Wilbur. The respondents answered and pleaded: The town of Wilbur is a municipal corporation, city, or town, of the fourth class incorporated by an order of the board of county commissioners of Lincoln county, Wash., made and entered on the 4th day of August, 1890, under the provisions of the act of March 27 1890, which said order of the board of county commissioners was filed in the office of the secretary of state on the 14th day of August, 1890. That ever since the date of said incorporation the town of Wilbur has maintained an organized government, and has performed all of the functions of a municipal corporation of the fourth class, and is still maintaining such government and performing all the functions of such a municipal corporation. That the respondents other than said town are the duly elected qualified, and acting officers of said town. That on the 7th day of August, 1901, at a regular meeting of the town council, it was decided to construct a system of waterworks within the town of Wilbur, and to employ a competent engineer to draw plans and specifications for the same. That on the 16th day of October, 1901, at a regular meeting of the town council of the town of Wilbur, Ordinance No. A54 passed first reading, and afterwards, on the 6th day of November, 1901, at a regular meeting of the town council of Wilbur said Ordinance No. A54 was read for the second time by sections and adopted and passed. This ordinance is an exhibit to the answer, and authorizes an indebtedness for the waterworks. That on the 8th day of November, 1901, said Ordinance No. A54 was regularly published in full in the Wilbur Register, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published once each week at Wilbur, Lincoln county, Wash., and that said Wilbur Register was the newspaper doing the town printing, and was the newspaper designated in said ordinance as the one in which said ordinance was to be published, and that said ordinance took effect and was in force from and after its passage, approval, and publication, and has never been repealed, amended, or set aside. That notice of the election provided for in said ordinance was given by publication in the Wilbur Register, the paper doing the town printing, and designated in said ordinance, for a period of five consecutive weeks immediately preceding the holding of said election, to wit, from the 15th day of November, 1901, to the 13th day of December, 1901. That on the 15th day of November, 1901, notice was published to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Meise v. Jaderlund (In re Feb. 14, 2017, Special Election on Moses Lake Sch. Dist. #161 Proposition 1)
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 2018
    ...accomplished had the statute been followed specifically.Literal compliance of election laws is not essential. Hesseltine v. Town of Wilbur , 29 Wash. 407, 410-11, 69 P. 1094 (1902). ¶ 28 Washington courts have applied the term "substantial compliance" in numerous circumstances. Washington l......
  • State ex rel. Sampson v. Superior Court for King County
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 3, 1913
    ...and any failure to give it would not render an election void, and cites Seymour v. Tacoma, 6 Wash. 427, 33 P. 1059, and Hesseltine v. Wilbur, 29 Wash. 407, 69 P. 1094. both of these cases notice was given. In the first case the notice was less than the required time, while in the latter cas......
  • Sommercamp v. Kelly
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1902
    ... ... Ordinance--Election--Whenecer the common council of such city ... or the trustees of such town or other legislative body of any ... such city or town shall deem it advisable [8 Idaho 719] to ... 136; ... Seymour v. City of Tacoma, 6 Wash. 427, 33 P. 1059; ... Hesseltine v. Town of Wilbur, 29 Wash. 407, 69 P ... 1094; 1 Dillon on Municipal Corporations, sec. 197, p ... ...
  • School Dist. No. 81 of Spokane County v. Taxpayers of, and Within, School Dist. No. 81 of Spokane County, 31644.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1950
    ... ... 1059; State ... ex rel. Mullen v. Doherty, 16 Wash. 382, 47 P. 958; ... Hesseltine v. Town of Wilbur, 29 Wash. 407, 69 P ... 1094; Rands v. Clarke County, 79 Wash. 152, 139 P ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT