Jackson v. Commercial Waterway Dist. No. 1 of Pierce County

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MORRIS, C.J.
• Citation: Jackson v. Commercial Waterway Dist. No. 1 of Pierce County, 147 P. 1140, 85 Wash. 301 (Wash. 1915)
• Decision Date: 23 April 1915
• Docket Number: 12738.
• Parties: JACKSON et ux. v. COMMERCIAL WATERWAY DIST. NO. I OF PIERCE COUNTY et al.

147 P. 1140

85 Wash. 301

JACKSON et ux. v. COMMERCIAL WATERWAY DIST. NO. I OF PIERCE COUNTY et al.

No. 12738.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 23, 1915

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; W. O. Chapman Judge.

Action by S. M. Jackson and wife against the Commercial Waterway District No. 1 of Pierce County and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

C. M Riddell, of Tacoma, for appellants.

John D Fletcher, of Tacoma, for respondents.

MORRIS C.J.

Action to annul the organization of Commercial Waterway District No 1 of Pierce County and to enjoin respondent commissioners from acting as commissioners of such district. The validity of the district organization is attacked solely upon the ground that certain community lands were included in the proposed district, and that the petition initiating the formation of the district was signed by the husbands alone; it being asserted that excluding such lands from the petition will leave less than the requisite area represented by the petition. It being conceded that the statute relating to the formation of such districts has been complied with, and no objection has been made at any stage of the proceeding, it is doubtful whether these appellants are now in a position to raise any question other than the constitutionality of the law involved, since the petition is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and ample opportunity was afforded appellants to appear and enter their objections, if any, which they have neglected to avail themselves of. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Pierce County, 51 Wash. 12, 97 P. 1099, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 286; Collins v. Ellensburg, 68 Wash. 212, 122 P. 1010; Chandler v. Puyallup, 70 Wash. 632, 127 P. 293. We will, however, pass this question, as we do not find its answer necessary to a decision of the case.

We find attached to the complaint, as an exhibit, an acknowledgment signed by the respective wives of the husbands who signed the petition in behalf of community lands, in which, referring to such petition, it is acknowledged that the same 'was filed with my prior authorization and consent, and the signature to the same by my husband, as a petitioner thereon was with my prior authorization and consent, with full authority, as my agent and representative, and as the agent and representative of the marital community, in so far as I individually or as a member of the marital...