Maxwell v. Lancaster

• Decision Date: 19 September 1914
• Docket Number: 11820.
• Citation: 143 P. 157,81 Wash. 602
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: MAXWELL et al. v. LANCASTER et al., County Com'rs.

143 P. 157

81 Wash. 602

MAXWELL et al. v. LANCASTER et al., County Com'rs.

No. 11820.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 19, 1914

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Thos. E. Grady Judge.

Suit by Alexander Maxwell and others against James Lancaster and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Parker Richards & Fontaine, of North Yakima, for appellants.

Harold B. Gilbert, of North Yakima, for respondents.

FULLERTON, J.

The county commissioners of Yakima county, in making estimates of the amount required to meet the public expenses of that county for the year 1914, included therein the sum of $15,000 for horticultural purposes, pursuant to the provisions of section 3133, Rem. & Bal. Code. Shortly after the publication of the estimates, this action was begun by the respondent, a resident and taxpayer of the county of Yakima, to restrain and enjoin the commissioners from levying a tax to meet the particular estimate, on the ground that the section of the statute on which the commissioners relied as authorizing the levy had been repealed, and that there was no other statute authorizing such levy. The county commissioners demurred generally to the complaint, which demurrer the trial court overruled. They thereupon elected to stand on the demurrer and judgment was entered against them according to the prayer of the complaint. This appeal is from the judgment so entered.

To an understanding of the question involved a short review of the legislative enactments on the subject of horticulture is necessary. The Legislature at its session in 1909 passed an act creating a horticultural department. The act created the office of commissioner of horticulture, and prescribed the duties of the incumbent thereof. It divided the state into 15 horticultural districts, and provided for the appointment of a district horticultural inspector for each of the several districts. Certain duties were imposed on persons engaged in horticultural pursuits, for the violation of which fines were imposed, and licenses were required from those engaged in the business of selling and dealing in nursery stocks. By section 64 of the act, being section 3133 of the Code above mentioned, it was made the duty of the board of county commissioners of each county in the state, at the time of making the regular annual tax levy in each year, to include in such levy a tax in such amount as they should find necessary to meet the expenses for horticultural purposes for the ensuing year. The sum so levied, together with the fines and license fees collected was required to be paid into the state treasury for the benefit of a 'district horticultural fund,' and was required to be credited to the horticultural district within which the county levying the tax was included; the sum so collected to be expended for horticultural purposes in such district.

At the session of 1911 the Legislature passed an amendatory act (Laws 1911, p. 513), in which it more specifically defined the duties of the district horticultural inspectors and created a fund called the 'horticultural fund,' from which it was provided should be paid the salaries, compensation, and expenses of district inspectors and their assistants, and into which fund should be paid all fines imposed and collected and all the inspection and license fees imposed or collected under the provisions of the act, together with such appropriations for horticultural purposes as are made by the Legislature of the state of Washington. And in the general appropriation bill at that session $75,000 was appropriated from the general fund for the benefit of the horticultural fund.

At the session of 1913 the Legislature passed an act creating a department of agriculture. Laws 1913, p. 196. The act was entitled:

'An act creating a department of agriculture, providing for the organization and administration thereof, defining the powers and duties of its officers and employés in relation to agriculture, horticulture, live stock, dairying, state fairs, foods, drinks, drugs, oils, and other kindred subjects, providing penalties for the violation thereof, and repealing certain acts and parts of acts.'

By the provisions of the act the department was charged with the administration of the laws relating to agriculture agricultural resources and products, horticulture, live stock, foods, drugs, and oils, and such other subjects as the Legislature should from time to time provide. The office of commissioner of horticulture was created, and the incumbent given authority to exercise the powers vested by law in, and theretofore required to be performed by, the state veterinarian, the state food and drug commissioner, the commissioner of horticulture, the district horticultural inspectors, the state oil inspector, the state fair commissioner, the Southwest Washington fair commission, the state commissioner of labor, in so far as his duties concerned the supervision and inspection of bakeries and bakeshops, the duties of the department of animal husbandry in respect to the registry and licensing of stallions and jacks, and the duties of the Washington agricultural experiment station in respect to commercial fertilizers used for manurial purposes. The act left in force the provisions of the earlier acts with reference to fees and fines, and provided that all moneys collected from such sources should be paid into the state general fund, and that all moneys then in the state agricultural fund should be transferred to the state general fund; further providing that all salaries and expenses incurred under the provisions of the act should be paid from the general fund out of moneys appropriated for that purpose. The act contains a repealing section in which the sections of the existing laws intended to be repealed are scheduled. This schedule includes section 64 of the original horticultural...