Packwood v. Kittitas County

• Citation: 15 Wash. 88,45 P. 640
• Parties: PACKWOOD v. KITTITAS COUNTY ET AL.
• Decision Date: 29 June 1896
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

45 P. 640

15 Wash. 88

PACKWOOD v. KITTITAS COUNTY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 29, 1896

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

Action by S. T. Packwood against the county of Kittitas and others. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Wood &amp Oakley, for appellant.

Eugene E. Wager, for respondents.

HOYT, C.J.

By this action it was sought to prevent the county of Kittitas from issuing certain proposed funding bonds, and to restrain the officers of said county, who were made defendants, from signing, attesting, or countersigning said bonds. The grounds upon which these objects were sought were the alleged invalidity of the act of March 9, 1893, under which there had been an attempt to validate the warrants for which the funding bonds were to be issued; the invalidity of the act of March 22, 1895, which authorized the issuing of funding bonds: and the insufficiency of the election held for the purpose of validating the warrants, even if the act under which it was held was valid. The validity of the first of these acts was recognized by this court in the cases of Hunt v. Fawcett 8 Wash. St. 396, 36 P. 318, and in Williams v Shoudy, 12 Wash. St. 363, 41 P. 169. The objections to the other are not clearly pointed out, and we see no reason for holding that it is not in full force. The regularity of the election proceedings for the validation of the same warrants which are involved in this action was also passed upon in the case of Williams v. Shoudy, supra, and a conclusion reached adverse to the contention of appellant but the particular ground upon which the appellant in this action principally relies was given but slight consideration. The main contention of appellant in the case at bar is that the election proceedings were invalid, for the reason that no sufficient notice was given of such election. The alleged insufficiency in the notice consists in the fact that it was not stated therein at what place or places the election would be held,-the only statement as to time and place being that on the 8th day of November, 1894, in the county of Kittitas, state of Washington, such election would be held; and it is claimed that the failure to state in the published notice the places at which the election would be held rendered the notice insufficient. But we are of the opinion that the law did not contemplate that more than a general notice as to when the election would be held throughout the county should be published; that it was intended that voters should resort to the notices required by the general...