In re Campbell

• Decision Date: 31 May 1890
• Citation: 24 P. 624,1 Wash. 287
• Parties: In re CAMPBELL
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

24 P. 624

1 Wash. 287

In re CAMPBELL

Supreme Court of Washington

May 31, 1890 ^[1]

Laws Wash. 1889-90 p. 280, c.1, § 1, provides that "any portion of a county containing not less than 300 inhabitants and not incorporated as a municipal corporation, may become incorporated under the provisions of this act, and when so incorporated shall have the powers conferred, or that may be hereafter be conferred, by law upon municipal corporations of the class to which the same may belong: provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent the reincorporation of towns and villages under the provisions of this act, whatever their population, heretofore incorporated or intended so to be, under the provisions of the act approved February 2 1888, entitled 'An act for the incorporation of towns and villages in the Territory of Washington,' and said reincorporation shall be construed as a full acceptance of the terms and conditions imposed by this act." Section 2 prescribes the steps to be taken, and section 3 is upon the election of officers. Section 4 prescribes the steps to be taken by towns or cities already incorporated to secure reincorporation under this act. Section 6 provides that "all towns, villages, and cities heretofore incorporated by virtue of an act entitled 'An act for the incorporation of towns and villages in the Territory of Washington,' approved February 2, 1888, may incorporate under the provisions of this act, in the manner provided by section 4 of chapter 1 of this act.'

B.F. Jacobs and Parsons &amp Caldwell, for petitioners.

W.H. Snell, for respondents.

HOYT J.

This cause comes to this court upon the certificate of the judge of the superior court that it is desirable to have the opinion of this court upon the questions presented, and upon the order of said superior court that the proceedings be brought here for the determination of four questions, as follows: "(1) Can a city incorporated under the act of February 2, 1888, (Laws 1887, p. 221,) entitled, 'An act for the incorporation of towns and villages in the Territory of Washington,' incorporate under sections 1, 2, and 3 of an act entitled 'An act providing for the organization, classification, incorporation, and government of municipal corporations, and declaring an emergency, approved March 27, 1890?' (Laws 1890, p. 280.) (2) Can a city incorporated under the act of February 2, 1888, incorporate under sections 1, 2, and 3 of the act of March 27, 1890, with a larger territory than that included in the original boundaries? (3) Should not a city incorporated under the set of February 2, 1888, reincorporate under sections 4, 5, 6, of the act of March 27, 1890? (4) Must not cities incorporated under the act of February 2, 1888, enlarge their boundaries under section 9 of the act of March 27, 1890, or under an act entitled 'An act to provide for the extending and enlarging of the corporate limits of any city, town, or village in this state, and for consolidating and uniting towns and villages, and declaring an emergency, approved February 26, 1890?' "

The first two of these questions are clearly pertinent to the controversy between the parties, and their rights cannot be determined without a finding which must substantially answer said questions. We therefore think them properly before us for decision. An answer to the other two questions is not necessary to the determination of this action, and for that reason we do not feel called upon to answer them. We however fully appreciate the fact that they relate to matters of grave public interest, and that the object of the lower court in sending them here was a most worthy one, and, had the case been as fully presented by counsel affirming the right of cities to reincorporate under sections 4, 5, and 6 of the act in question as it has by those inclined to a contrary view, we should perhaps feel at liberty to enter upon the investigation thereof; but as this has not been done we must decline to examine these questions and content ourselves with a decision of the first two, as above stated. If the proviso in section 1 of ...