Rehmke v. Goodwin
| Decision Date | 10 August 1891 |
| Parties | REHMKE v. GOODWIN ET AL. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Kittitas county; GRAVES, Judge.
Action for injunction by Henry Rehmke against J. C. Goodwin, M Horan, and J. W. Richards, board of county commissioners of Kittitas county. Judgment for defendants on demurrer. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Frost & Warner, for appellant.
D H. McFalls, for respondents.
In this action appellant seeks to enjoin the respondents, the board of commissioners of Kittitas county, from issuing the coupon bonds of said county in the sum of $150,000, which bonds said board were attempting to negotiate and issue. The complaint was demurred to, and the demurrer was sustained, and judgment rendered dismissing the action. The purpose for which said bonds were to be issued was to fund the outstanding indebtedness of Kittitas county. The question of the issuance of said bonds was submitted to the voters of said county at the general election held on the 4th day of November, 1890 and more than three-fifths of the votes cast thereat in said county were in favor of such issuance. The injunction was sought mainly upon the grounds that the various proceedings had in submitting the matter to a vote were imperfect and irregular, and that the vote thereon was void in consequence thereof. The complaint does not sufficiently present the points which the parties now desire to have decided, but, to aid the same, it is conceded by the respondents in their brief, and upon the argument, that the amount of the bonds so proposed to be issued exceeded the amount of 1 1/2 per centum of the total property valuation of said county as ascertained by the last preceding assessment for state and county purposes, and both parties concede that part of said indebtedness was incurred before and a part since the state constitution became operative. In the case of Murry v Fay, 26 P. 533, (decided in April last,) this court, in construing section 3 of the funding bond act, (see page 38 Sess. Laws 1889-90,) held that county commissioners could issue bonds to fund lawful county indebtedness incurred within the limitations of section 1 of said act without submitting the question of issuing to a popular vote. In this case we do not know what per cent. the outstanding indebtedness is of the total property valuation, except that it is greater than 1 1/2 per cent. thereof, and it is also conceded to be less than 5 per cent.; nor do we now what the proportion of the then existing indebtedness to the property valuation was at the time the constitution went into effect that is now outstanding; or whether any of the present indebtedness was incurred prior to January 1, 1888. If any such remains in existence, it could yet be placed in the form of bonds by the commissioners under the provisions of the county bond act passed by the territorial legislative assembly in 1888, (see Sess. Laws 1887-88, p. 10,) even if in excess of the 1 1/2 percent., but within the amount there limited. We are also satisfied that the whole of the lawfully contracted indebtedness, whenever incurred, not now exceeding 1 1/2 per cent. of the total property valuation, can be converted into bonds by the commissioners under the provisions of the funding bond act aforesaid, approved March...
To continue reading
Request your trial