Paul v. City of Seattle

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CROW, J.
• Citation: Paul v. City of Seattle, 40 Wash. 294, 82 P. 601 (Wash. 1905)
• Decision Date: 28 September 1905
• Parties: PAUL v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

82 P. 601

40 Wash. 294

PAUL v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 28, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Arthur E. Griffin, Judge.

Action by Frank H. Paul against the city of Seattle. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Geo. F Aust and W. R. Bell, for appellant.

Wm Parmerlee and Scott Calhoun, for respondent.

CROW J.

This action was brought by appellant to recover a brokerage or commission claimed by him on the sale of certain municipal bonds. The only question involved is the sufficiency of the complaint, which, omitting its formal parts, reads as follows: '(1) That at all the times herein mentioned the plaintiff was, and now is, engaged in the business of bond brokerage, buying, selling, and negotiating for the sale of bonds and other securities, both municipal and private. (2) That at all times herein mentioned the defendant was, and now is, a municipal corporation of the first class, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Washington. (3) That by authority of and pursuant to chapter 85 of the Laws of 1901, passed by the Legislature of the state of Washington, the city council of the defendant did on the 30th day of January, 1902, duly enact an ordinance that a proposal of the plans for the erection and construction of a municipal lighting plant for the city of Seattle, together with a proposal that the city of Seattle issue its bonds in the sum of $590,000 to pay for the acquisition of the necessary property therefor and for the expenses and costs of constructing, erecting, and equipping such plant, should be submitted to the qualified voters of the city of Seattle, for their approval or rejection, all as provided in said act of the Legislature. (4) That pursuant to said act and said ordinance the said two propositions were duly submitted to the said qualified voters, and both of the same duly authorized by a vote of more than three-fifths of the said qualified voters being in favor thereof. (5) That pursuant to said act, ordinance, and ratification the city comptroller of the city of Seattle duly advertised for bids for the purchase of said bonds, and on the 9th day of May 1903, in the presence of the corporate authorities and the city treasurer, did duly open all of the bids submitted; that only one bid was submitted, and that one was for the bonds at par, providing the same bore not less than 4 1/2 per cent interest, payable semiannually. (6) That the ordinance submitting the said proposition of issuing said bonds and the proposal voted upon by the said voters each provided that the said bonds should be sold so that the city should not pay more than 4 per cent. interest upon the par value of said bonds. (7) That by reason of the acts of the officers and servants of the city having in charge the construction of said lighting plant there had been prior to the said 9th day of May, 1903, large sums of money drawn from the general fund for the expenses of preliminary construction of said plant and the acquisition of the necessary right of way, and there has up to said day been devoted to said purpose not less than $60,000, all drawn from said general fund with the expectation and purpose to repay the same to said general fund upon the sale of said bonds. That on said day, and for a long time prior thereto, the withdrawal of said sum from said general fund had been keenly felt by the city, and the immediate return of said sum to said general fund was sorely needed. That the said general fund was then practically exhausted. There was urgent need of money in that fund, and the only source of obtaining the same was the sale of said bonds and a return to said general fund from the amount realized upon such sale the aforesaid sum of over $60,000. That the price of money at said time was advancing, instead of cheapening, and the prospects for a sale were bad. (8) That for years it had been the custom for the city of Seattle to vest its financial control and management to its comptroller and chairman of its finance committee. That these officers had for years cast upon them and had exercised such general supervision and management, all of which was acquiesced in and recognized by all the departments and officers and agents of the city and by the general public. That prior to said day the acts of said officers, their promises, agreements, and contracts of employment, when made for the best interests of the city, had always been ratified. (9) That shortly after the said 9th day of May, 1903, the city of Seattle, by its comptroller, acting upon his own official behalf and by instruction of the finance committee and its chairman aforesaid, employed this plaintiff to obtain a purchaser of said bonds. (10) That plaintiff succeeded in obtainig such purchaser, all as employed to do, and the city sold the entire issue of said bonds to such purchaser at par, the bonds bearing interest at 3 3/4 per cent. per annum, payable semiannually. That in the procuring thereof plaintiff did expend much and valuable time and effort, and did expend considerable sums of money in the payment of the necessary hotel and traveling expenses incurred while engaged in his said employment. (11) That without the services of this plaintiff the defendant could not have sold said bonds at par bearing a less rate of interest than 4 per cent. (12) That by reason of the services rendered by plaintiff as aforementioned the defendant was extricated from its then financial straits, its credit was re-established and greatly enhanced, the proposition submitted to the people was made possible of execution, and the said defendant's general fund had restored to it the said sum of $60,000 which it had previously loaned. (13) That the actual financial saving to the city in interest agreed to be paid on said bonds, to wit, the difference in interest between the amount of said bonds as bearing 4 per cent., which was the best the city could have done but for the plaintiff's services, and 3 3/4 per cent., the rate borne by the bonds as sold by plaintiff, is $29,500. That the compound interest upon the semiannual payments of interest for the time the bonds are to run, will amount to at least the sum of $18,000, and the total saving in interest to the defendant by reason of plaintiff's said services is at least the sum of $47,500. (14) That the plaintiff occupied many days' time in effecting said sale, and during all of said time it was well known to said defendant, its comptroller, the chairman of its finance committee aforesaid, and a majority of the members of its city council, that plaintiff was at defendant's request engaged in the effort to sell said bonds; that he was expending his time and money in so doing; that his services were of great value; that the same were to be paid for by defendant; that his employment had been and was on behalf of said city through its agents aforesaid; that he had been promised by said agents compensation therefor; and that a majority of the members of the city council had promised that he should be compensated therefor. (15) That the plaintiff rendered said services and expended the said sums under the full belief that he would be compensated therefor; and the defendant, its comptroller, a majority of the finance committee, including its chairman, and a majority of the members of its city council, at all times knowing that he was so believing, and that he had been by the said officers promised compensation for his services, did accept said services and continue to accept the same, and did accept the offer of the purchaser procured by plaintiff as aforesaid, at all times knowing that said plaintiff had procured such purchaser under the aforesaid promises and employment. (16) That the defendant refuses, and for more than one year has refused, to pay the plaintiff anything whatsoever on account of his said claim, and persistently contends that the plaintiff has no legal demand upon it. That for more than one year it has neglected and refused to act upon his said claim, though often requested so to do, and though the duly verified claim and demand was many months ago presented to it. (17) That the said bonds were sold on the 27th day of July, 1903. (18) That the reasonable value of plaintiff's services as aforesaid is the sum of $14,750. (19) That the defendant will continue to retain all the aforesaid advantages gained by plaintiff's services, will not attempt or offer to reimburse plaintiff, and will, unless restrained by this court, seek to evade liability on the ground that the acts of its agents in the employment of the plaintiff were beyond the powers of such agents. (20) That if the acts of the said agents of the defendant were in excess of their powers, and ...