Petros v. City of Vancouver

• Decision Date: 09 January 1896
• Citation: 13 Wash. 423,43 P. 361
• Parties: PETROS v. CITY OF VANCOUVER ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

43 P. 361

13 Wash. 423

PETROS v. CITY OF VANCOUVER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 9, 1896

Appeal from superior court, Clarke county; A. L. Miller, Judge.

Action by A. Petros against the city of Vancouver and others to enjoin the sale of certain municipal bonds. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

C. D Bowles, for appellant.

Moody Coovert & Stapleton, for respondents.

HOYT, C.J.

On the 3d day of November, 1890, the common council of the city of Vancouver passed an ordinance submitting to the voters therein the question of borrowing $55,000 by the city for municipal purposes. The proposition was approved by the requisite majority of the voters, and thereafter the common council issued 55 negotiable coupon bonds of the denomination of $1,000, all of which were sold, and are now outstanding obligations of said city. Thereafter there was submitted to the voters of said city the question of legalizing its indebtedness to the amount of something over $23,000. The proposition was indorsed at the election called for that purpose, and thereafter the common council adopted a resolution authorizing the issue of bonds to the amount of $20,000 for funding the indebtedness so legalized. Under the resolution so adopted, and by virtue of the provisions of the act "to authorize counties, cities and towns to issue bonds to fund outstanding indebtedness, and providing for the levy and collection of a specific tax to pay the principal and interest of such bonds and declaring an emergency," bids for said bonds were requested, and that of the defendants Morris & Whitehead accepted, and the right to purchase said bonds accorded to them; and the officials of said city were about to execute and deliver the bonds so contracted to be sold, to prevent which this action was instituted to have the defendants enjoined from further proceeding in the matter of the sale of said bonds. The ground upon which such injunction was sought was that the indebtedness which was to be funded by the issue of the bonds was not a part of the legal indebtedness of the city of Vancouver, and the foundation of this claim was that the vote by which it was sought to validate it was of no effect, for the reason that such indebtedness, with that already outstanding, was more than 5 per cent. of the assessed valuation of the city for the preceding year. From the figures set out in the complaint it appeared that, if the entire amount of the $55,000 represented by the first issue of bonds was a part of the 5 per cent. of indebtedness which the city was authorized to incur for ordinary city purposes the $23,000 of indebtedness sought to be legalized would when taken with the other outstanding indebtedness, amount to more than 5 per cent. of the...