Metcalf v. City of Seattle

Decision Date08 May 1890
PartiesMETCALF v. CITY OF SEATTLE ET AL.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Appeal from superior court, King county.

Action by James B. Metcalf against the city of Seattle and others involving the power of the city of Seattle to issue bonds for the construction of water and sewerage systems. There was a judgment in defendants' favor, and plaintiff appeals.

Const Wash. art. 8, § 6, provides: "No county, city, town school-district, or other municipal corporation shall for any purpose become indebted in any manner to an amount exceeding one and one-half per centum of the taxable property in such county, city, town, school-district, or other municipal corporation, without the assent of three-fifths of the voters therein, voting at an election to be held for that purpose nor in cases requiring such as sent shall the total indebtedness at any time exceed five per centum on the value of the taxable property therein, to be ascertained by the last assessment for state and county purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness, except that in incorporated cities the assessment shall be taken from the last assessment for city purposes: provided, that no part of the indebtedness allowed in this section shall be incurred for any purpose other than strictly county, city, town, school-district, or other municipal purposes: provided, further, that any city or town, with such assent, may be allowed to become indebted to a larger amount, but not exceeding 5 per centum additional for supplying such city or town with water, artificial light, and sewers, when the works for supplying such water, light, and sewers shall be owned and controlled by the municipality."

Act Wash. Feb. 26, 1890, (Sess. Laws, 1889-90, pp. 225-227,) is as follows: "An act authorizing and empowering cities and towns organized prior to the adoption of the state constitution to extend their credit and to fund their indebtedness, and validating certain indebtedness already contracted, and declaring an emergency to exist. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Washington: Section 1. That any city or town having a corporate existence in this state at the time of the adoption of the constitution thereof is hereby authorized and empowered to borrow money and to contract indebtedness in any other manner for general municipal purposes, not exceeding in amount, together with the existing general indebtedness of such city or town, one and one-half per centum of the taxable property in such city or town, to be ascertained by the last assessment for state and county purposes previous to the incurring of such indebtedness, except that in incorporated cities the assessment shall be taken from the last assessment for city purposes, whenever it is deemed advisable to do so by the city or town council thereof. Sec. 2. That any such city or town may borrow money or contract indebtedness for strictly municipal purposes over the amount specified in the preceding section, but not exceeding in amount, together with the existing general indebtedness, five per centum of the taxable property in such city or town, to be ascertained as provided in the preceding section, through the council of such city or town, whenever three-fifths of the voters therein assent thereto at an election to be held for that purpose at such time, upon such reasonable notice and in the manner presented by the city or town council, not inconsistent with the general election laws. Sec. 3. That any city or town described in the first section of this act shall, in addition to the power granted in the preceding sections, have the power, through its council, to borrow money, or to contract indebtedness, in an amount not exceeding five per centum of the taxable property in such city or town, ascertained as provided in the first section thereof, for the purpose of supplying such city or town with water, artificial light, or sewers, when the plant or plants used for such purposes shall be owned and controlled by the city, whenever three-fifths of the voters therein assent thereto at an election to be held for that purpose, according to the provisions of section two of this act. Sec. 4. That any city or town of the description of those included in the first section of this act may fund its indebtedness at any time in such a manner, for such time and upon such terms and interest as its council may deem advisable: provided, that the indebtedness funded shall not, with all the existing indebtedness, exceed in amount one and one-half per centum of the taxable property thereof, ascertained as provided in the first section hereof, unless such indebtedness shall have been authorized by the assent of three-fifths of the voters of such city or town, as hereinbefore provided. Sec. 5. That any indebtedness now owing by any such city or town, contracted strictly for municipal purposes, whether the same exceeds the amount which such city or town was authorized to contract under its charter or not, is hereby validated and declared to be a binding obligation upon such city or town when the only ground of the invalidity of such indebtedness is that it exceeds the amount authorized by the charter of such city or town: provided that, if said indebtedness exceeds one and one-half per centum, including present indebtedness, upon the taxable property therein, to be ascertained as hereinbefore provided, then such indebtedness shall not be deemed to be validated by this act till three-fifths of the voters in such city or town shall assent to the same, at an election held for that purpose, in the manner provided by section two of this act; provided, further, that the indebtedness ratified, including all existing indebtedness, shall not exceed in amount five per centum upon the taxable property in such city or town, ascertained as hereinbefore indicated: and provided, further, that this section shall only apply to indebtedness now existing. Sec. 6. That when this act comes in conflict with any provision, limitation, or restriction in any local or special law or charter existing at the time that the constitution of the state of Washington was adopted, this statute shall govern and control. Sec. 7. That, whereas, many of the cities and towns of this state are seriously embarrassed in the making of needed improvements by restrictions in their charters, preventing them from extending their credit to the present constitutional limit, an emergency exists for the immediate effect of this law, and the same shall take effect therefor from and after its passage."

Act Wash. March 26, 1890, (Sess. Laws 1889-90, pp. 520-522:) "An act authorizing cities and towns to construct internal improvements, and to issue bonds to pay therefor and declaring an emergency. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Washington: Section 1. That any incorporated city or town within the state be, and is hereby, authorized to construct, or condemn and purchase, or purchase or add to and maintain, water-works within or without the city limits for the purpose of furnishing the city and the inhabitants thereof with an ample supply of water for all purposes, and to construct and maintain a system of sewerage, with full jurisdiction and authority to manage, regulate, and control the same beyond the limits of the corporation, and to buy or build gas-works or electric light plants for the purpose of lighting streets and public places, and supplying lights to the inhabitants of such cities and towns, with full authority to regulate and control the same. Sec. 2. Whenever the city council or board of trustees of any such city or town shall deem it advisable that the city or town of which they are such officers shall exercise the authority hereby conferred upon them in relation to either or both such water-works or system of sewerage or plant or works for lighting purposes, the corporation shall provide therefor by ordinance, which shall specify and adopt the system or plan proposed, and declare the estimated cost thereof as near as may be, and the same shall be submitted for ratification or rejection to the qualified voters of said city, at a special election, of which 30 days' notice shall be given in the paper doing the city printing, by publication in each issue of said paper during said time: provided that, if the said city or town is to become indebted or issue bonds for said water-works or sewerage system or plant or works for lighting purposes, the said proposition and authority to become so indebted shall be adopted and assented to by three-fifths of the qualified voters of said city or town voting at said election, otherwise by a majority vote; and, when so adopted and assented to as aforesaid, the said corporation shall become authorized to become indebted, and issue bonds as hereinafter provided; subject, however, to the condition that the total indebtedness shall not exceed ten per centum of the taxable property shown in the last assessment roll. Sec. 3. Whenever a city or town shall be authorized to issue bonds, the said bonds shall be issued in denominations of not less than one hundred or more than one thousand dollars, shall be numbered from one up, consecutively, shall bear the date of their issue, shall be payable not more than twenty years from date, and shall bear interest not exceeding six per cent. per annum, payable semi-annually, with interest coupons attached, and the principal and interest shall be made payable at such place as may be designated. The bonds and each coupon shall be signed by the mayor, and attested by the clerk under the seal of the city or town. Sec. 4. There shall be levied each year a tax upon the taxable property of such city or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Rice v. Palmer
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1906
    ...State v. Langlie, 5 N.D. 594, 67 N.W. 958; State v. Grace, 20 Ore. 154, 25 P. 382; Smith v. Proctor, 130 N.Y. 319, 29 N.E. 312; Metcalf v. Seattle, 1 Wash. 297. are other cases to the same effect as these, and as many, probably more, cases to the contrary, one of the best considered and abl......
  • State ex inf. Major v. Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1911
    ...209 Mo. 469; Belknap v. Louisville, 99 Ky. 474; Seward v. Water Co., 201 Mass. 453; Fritz v. San Francisco, 132 Cal. 373; Metcalfe v. Seattle, 1 Wash. 297; State ex v. Lancaster County, 6 Neb. 474; Craig v. The Church, 88 Pa. St. 42. (b) Article 9, section 16, of the Constitution sets forth......
  • In re Denny
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • February 1, 1901
    ... ... brethren who speak for the court." ...          In the ... case of City of South Bend v. Lewis, 138 ... Ind. 512, 37 N.E. 986, a statute providing for an election on ... v. Mayor of St. Joseph, 37 Mo. 270; State ... v. Binder, 38 Mo. 450, 455; Metcalf v ... City of Seattle, 1 Wash. 297; 25 P. 1010; ... Yesler v. City of Seattle, 1 Wash ... ...
  • The State ex rel. City of Carthage v. Gordon
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 9, 1909
    ... ... State ex rel. v. Wilder, 197 Mo. 1; State ex ... rel. v. Allen, 183 Mo. 283; Metcalf v. Seattle, ... 25 P. 1010; Rochester v. Quintard (N. Y.), 32 N.E. 760 ...          Elliott ... W. Major, Attorney-General, C. G ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • In the Beginning: the Washington Supreme Court a Century Ago
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 12-02, December 1988
    • Invalid date
    ...the executive or the legislature. 107. Ah Lim v. Territory of Washington, 1 Wash. 156, 24 P. 588 (1890). 108. Metcalfe v. City of Seattle, 1 Wash. 297, 25 P. 1010 (1890). 109. 1890 cases in which a law was declared unconstitutional: Kelly v. Stewart, 1 Wash. 98, 23 P. 405 (1890); Oregon Ry.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT