Lorence v. Bean
| Decision Date | 13 October 1897 |
| Citation | 50 P. 582,18 Wash. 36 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | LORENCE v. BEAN, MAYOR, ET AL. |
Appeal from superior court, Kittitas county; Carroll B. Graves Judge.
Mandamus by Ethel Lorence, a minor, by Joseph Lorence, her guardian ad litem, against J. W. Bean, mayor of the city of Ellensburg and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.
C. R. Hovey, for appellants.
L. A Vincent, Austin Mires, and Edward Pruyn, for respondent.
The respondent recovered a judgment against the city of Ellensburg for personal injuries occasioned by a defective sidewalk, which judgment was affirmed on appeal, by this court, in January, 1896. The present proceeding was instituted in the superior court to compel the city to levy a tax to pay that judgment. One contention of the city, and the only one which it is necessary to notice, is that the respondent must, in satisfaction of the judgment, accept a warrant upon the general fund of the city. It is not claimed that the charter of the city contains any special provision relating to the payment of judgments; and we think the case falls within section 674 of the Code of Procedure (2 Hill's Code), which provides that, "if a judgment be given for the recovery of money or damages" against a county or other municipal corporation, no execution shall issue thereon, but the party in whose favor the judgment is given shall present a certified transcript thereof to the officer "who is authorized to draw orders on the treasury thereof," and further provides that etc. The language of the statute is general, and must control, in the absence of any special provision on the subject in the act under which the city is incorporated. It was undoubtedly competent for the legislature to prescribe the manner in which judgments of all kinds against municipal corporations should be satisfied. The effect of the statute above referred to is to place the judgment creditor in the same position as any other creditor of the city, and gives him a warrant upon its general fund for the amount of the claim which he holds against the corporation. Thereafter his rights as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Emerson v. Mound City, 31475.
...Court, 160 Ala. 544, 49 So. 417, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1097; Evans v. Yost, 255 Fed. 726; Rice v. Walker, 44 Iowa, 458; Lorence v. Bean, 18 Wash. 36, 50 Pac. 582; Lamar v. City of Lamar, 128 Mo. 188, 26 S.W. 1025; Const. of Mo., Art. X, secs. 11, 12; Sec. 1233, R.S. STURGIS, C. This is a suit in......
-
Boise Development Co., Ltd. v. City of Boise
...Light & Power Co. v. Ft. Dodge, 115 Iowa 568, 89 N.W. 7; Conner v. Nevada, 188 Mo. 148, 107 Am. St. 314, 86 S.W. 256; Lorence v. Bean, 18 Wash. 36, 50 P. 582; Bloomington v. Perdue, 99 Ill. 329; Rice v. Moines, 40 Iowa 638; Little v. Portland, 26 Ore. 235, 37 P. 911; Cook v. Ansonia, 66 Con......
-
State ex rel. Pyle v. University City
...State ex rel. Poole v. Willow Springs, 183 S.W. 589; Flagstaff v. Gomez, 242 P. 1003; Bloomington v. Perdue, 99 Ill. 329; Lorence v. Bean, 18 Wash. 36, 50 P. 582; Gray's Limitations of Taxing Power and Indebtedness, 2089. III. Appellants cite Section 1685, Revised Statutes 1919, as controll......
-
Raynor v. King County
...property damages may be funded, and that the trial court was in error in allowing the expenditure for the $28,389.52. See Lorence v. Bean, 18 Wash. 36, 50 P. 582. on Municipal Corporations (2d ed.) Rev. Vol. 6, § 2376, states: 'Provisions as to debt limits, apply only to indebtedness which ......