Island County v. Babcock

• Decision Date: 04 August 1897
• Citation: 50 P. 54,17 Wash. 438
• Parties: ISLAND COUNTY v. BABCOCK ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

50 P. 54

17 Wash. 438

ISLAND COUNTY v. BABCOCK ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 4, 1897

Appeal from superior court, King county; T. J. Humes, Judge.

Action by the county of Island against J. M. Babcock and others for breach of contract. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Chas. F. Repath, for appellant.

Chas E. Patterson and Million & Houser, for respondents.

SCOTT C.J.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for the breach of a contract in writing executed to the board of county commissioners by the defendants, the body of which is as follows: "We, the undersigned, freeholders of said county and state, bind ourselves that in case block 23 in Thomas Coupe's plat of Coupeville, Wash., is chosen by your honorable body as a court-house site, that a good and sufficient warranty deed will be given to Island county for said block 23, without expense to the county." The complaint, in addition to certain formal allegations, alleged, in substance, that the board of county commissioners determined to provide for the erection of a court-house building for the county at Coupeville, the county seat; that a large number of suitable sites were offered therefor at said place, among them being block 23, in question; that, in pursuance of said undertaking, the plaintiff, through its commissioners, entered into the contract aforesaid, and selected said block 23 as the court-house site, and caused a court house to be erected thereon; that they thereafter demanded of the defendants a deed to said block 23, in pursuance of said agreement, and that the defendants refused to deliver or to cause a deed to the same to be delivered to the plaintiff; that, by reason thereof, plaintiff had been damaged in the sum of $1,000. At the trial the plaintiff sought to introduce in evidence the proceedings of the board of commissioners in relation to the matter, to which the defendants objected, because the complaint failed to state a cause of action, in that the contract upon which the action was founded was void, as against public policy; that the consideration for it was to induce the commissioners to erect the court house at a particular place, and to influence their discretion and judgment in the premises. The court sustained the objection and the plaintiff has appealed.

It appeared by the complaint that the defendants were not the owners of the block aforesaid, and it is contended by them on this appeal that the complaint does not state sufficient facts, for the reason that it does not contain an allegation that the owners of the property had not deeded...