Newman v. City of North Yakima

• Decision Date: 31 October 1893
• Citation: Newman v. City of North Yakima, 7 Wash. 220, 34 P. 921 (Wash. 1893)
• Parties: NEWMAN ET AL. v. CITY OF NORTH YAKIMA ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

34 P. 921

7 Wash. 220

NEWMAN ET AL. v. CITY OF NORTH YAKIMA ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 31, 1893

Appeal from superior court, Yakima county; Carroll B. Graves, Judge.

Action by J. M. Newman and W. L. Jones against the city of North Yakima and D. H. Cook, city marshal, to restrain a sale of plaintiff's property for taxes alleged to be delinquent.From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.Affirmed.

MacKinnon & Murane, for appellants.

Frank H. Rudkin and Jones & Newman, for respondents.

HOYT J.

This appeal presents but a single question: Were the provisions of the general law as to the assessment and collection of taxes in force at the time of the passage of the act incorporating the appellant the city of North Yakima, so referred to in said act as to make them a part thereof, so that a subsequent repeal of such provisions by a general law would not affect the same, so far as their relations to such act of incorporation were concerned?In other words, did such act of incorporation have such specific reference to such general provisions as to make them a part thereof?It is contended on the part of the appellants that such force must be given to the language of said act of incorporation.Appellants cite in support of their contention two California cases, ^[1] in each of which it was held that where it was provided in a special act of incorporation that anything in connection therewith should be done in accordance with the provisions of an act or section, such act or section became, to all intents and purposes, a part of the special act, and, so far as it relates to such special act, would not be repealed by any subsequent act which did not in express terms refer to it as a part of the special act into which it was incorporated.The principle established by these cases is undoubtedly sound, and we know of no authority to the contrary, but in our opinion it is not decisive of the question raised by this appeal, as above suggested.In those casesthe act or sections of the general law were expressly referred to as such, while in the case at bar there is no such express reference to any particular act or section.By this act of incorporation, it was provided only that certain things in connection with the levy and collection of taxes should be done in accordance with the provisions of the existing law, and in some places the term used was that the act should be done in accordance...