Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Everett
Decision Date | 17 July 1917 |
Docket Number | 13411. |
Citation | 166 P. 650,97 Wash. 259 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. et al. v. CITY OF EVERETT et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Guyle Alston, Judge.
Action by the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company and another against the City of Everett and others.From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiffs appeal.Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Hughes McMicken, Dovell & Ramsey and Otto B. Rupp, all of Seattle for appellants.
Wm. A Johnson, of Everett, for respondents.
On May 12, 1896, the city council of the city of Everett, by ordinance duly enacted, granted to the appellantSunset Telephone & Telegraph Company a franchise, subject to certain conditions and regulations, empowering it to erect and maintain within the corporate limits of the city named a telephone and telegraph system.The ordinance, omitting its formal parts, is as follows:
Within the time limited by the ordinance the grantee named therein filed with the city clerk its acceptance of the franchise granted, and thereafter, at great expense to itself, installed within the city a telephone and telegraph system, during the course of which it erected a large number of poles on the streets and alleys of the city along which it stretched wires for the transmission of electricity.Subsequent to the installation of the plant the grantee leased the same to its coappellant, the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company, which is now operating the same.The companies have at all times complied with the terms and conditions of the ordinance; their property within the city of Everett has been regularly assessed for state, county, school, and city taxes on an ad valorem basis as prescribed by the stateConstitution, which taxes it has duly and regularly paid.
The city of Everett, while a city of a lesser class at the time of the granting of the franchise mentioned, subsequently so far increased in population as to be entitled to become a city of the first class, with the privilege of framing its own charter.On April 16, 1912, advantage was taken of the privilege, the city framing and adopting a chapter in accordance with the authorization found in section 10, art. 11, of the state Constitution.Section 148 of the charter so adopted reads as follows:
'A minimum tax of fifty cents per annum shall be levied and collected upon each telegraph, telephone, electric light or other pole in or upon any street, alley or other public place of the city of Everett: Provided, that this section shall not apply to metal poles supporting cluster lights.'
On May 14, 1915, acting under and in pursuance of the foregoing provision of the charter, the city council of the city of Everett enacted the following ordinance (formal parts omitted):
The city thereafter threatened to enforce the provisions of the ordinance, whereupon the present action was begun to enjoin it from so doing.The complaint of the appellants, after appropriate allegations setting forth the foregoing facts further alleged that there is no statute of the state of Washington, provision of the charter, or ordinance of the city of Everett authorizing or providing for the inspection of poles such as the plaintiff's poles are, that no...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
King Cnty. v. King Cnty. Water Districts Nos. 20, 45, 49, 90, 111, 119, 125
...use and occupation of the streets.’ " (quoting Spokane Gas & Fuel, 175 Wash. at 108, 26 P.2d 1034 )); Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Everett, 97 Wash. 259, 267-68, 166 P. 650 (1917) (quoting favorably from W. Union Tel., 148 U.S. 92, 13 S.Ct. 485 ). In Spokane Gas & Fuel, for example, the ......
-
Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Seattle
... ... license for purposes of revenue is also 'especially ... granted' to cities of the first class. In any event, ... subdivision 33 of section 8966 has been uniformly construed ... to confer such power. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v ... Everett, 97 Wash. 259, 166 P. 650 ... II. It ... is contended that, conceding the power, the city is precluded ... from exercising it, because the state has preempted this ... field of taxation. With respect to police powers, it is a ... rule of universal ... ...
-
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. City of Seattle
...use of its property, exact of the user such terms and conditions as it may deem necessary to impose, we said on page 269 of 97 Was h., 166 P. 650, 654: 'But it does not follow that the city may grant franchise to a corporation to use its streets and other public places upon terms mutually a......
-
Oklahoma City v. Grigsby
... ... State, 139 Or. 434, 9 P.2d 122, 81 A. L. R. 1136; ... Pacific ... State, 139 Or. 434, 9 P.2d 122, 81 A. L. R. 1136; ... Pacific Tel ... L. R. 1136; ... Pacific Tel. & Teleg. Co. v. City of Everett ... ...