Pilling v. City of Everett

• Decision Date: 02 February 1912
• Citation: 67 Wash. 109,120 P. 873
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: PILLING v. CITY OF EVERETT et al.

120 P. 873

67 Wash. 109

PILLING v. CITY OF EVERETT et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 2, 1912

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; W. P. Bell Judge.

Action by Frank H. Pilling against the City of Everett and others. From a judgment dismissing the action, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

J. W Dootson, for appellant.

Benj. W. Sherwood and Earl W. Husted, for respondents.

PARKER J.

The plaintiff, a taxpayer of the city of Everett, seeks to have the city and its officers enjoined from paying certain warrants alleged to have been issued for indebtedness of the city which was incurred at a time when its indebtedness was in excess of 5 per cent. of the assessed value of the taxable property within the city. A trial upon the merits resulted in a denial of the relief sought and a dismissal of the action. From this disposition of the cause the plaintiff has appealed.

After issues were made by the pleadings, an agreed statement of facts was signed and filed by the attorneys for the respective parties, upon which the trial court evidently disposed of the cause without any other facts being before it. The warrants here involved were issued between April 8, 1909, and October 8, 1910, presumably for indebtedness incurred about the time of their issuance. This indebtedness was incurred at a time when the city was in debt to an amount exceeding 5 per cent. of the assessed value of the taxable property therein. The corporate authorities deeming it advisable that this indebtedness be vadidated by the voters of the city, on May 8, 1911, passed an ordinance submitting that question to the voters at a special election to be held June 13, 1911. An election was held on that day accordingly, when all of this indebtedness was ratified by the affirmative vote of more than three-fifths of the voters of the city voting at that election. At that time the total indebtedness of the city did not exceed five per cent. of the assessed value of the taxable property therein. This ratification election was held under the provisions of chapter 120, p. 614, of the Laws of 1911. It is not contended that there was any failure to comply with the provisions of this law in submitting the question of the ratification of the indebtedness to the voters of the city. No formal findings of fact were made by the trial court, but recitals were made in its judgment as follows: '* * * That the warrants set forth in plaintiff's complaint were each for mandatory expenses of said city, and that the election was duly held validating said warrants at a time when the city of Everett was within its five per centum limit of indebtedness, and that said warrants are legal and valid warrants and obligations against said city of Everett.' Exception was duly taken by counsel for appellant to the recitals in the judgment which in effect find that the warrants were issued for mandatory expenses of said city, and are valid obligations against the city.

The principal contention of counsel for appellant is that the court erred in holding that the indebtedness evidenced by these warrants was for 'mandatory expenses of said city.' It is conceded that by the use of these words the learned trial court meant that the indebtedness was of that nature which the city might lawfully incur, notwithstanding the city had passed the debt limit prescribed by section 6, art. 8, of the Constitution, under the following decisions of this court: Rauch v. Chapman, 16 Wash. 568, 48 P. 253, 36 L. R. A. 407, 58 Am. St. Rep. 52; Farquharson v. Yeargin, 24 Wash. 549, 64 P. 717; Hull v. Ames, 26 Wash. 272, 66 P. 391, 90 Am. St. Rep. 743.

The only evidence we have touching the nature of the various items of...