Rummens v. Evans, 24035.

• Decision Date: 30 June 1932
• Docket Number: 24035.
• Citation: 168 Wash. 527,13 P.2d 26
• Parties: RUMMENS v. EVANS et al. (SIMPSON et al. Interveners.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

13 P.2d 26

168 Wash. 527

RUMMENS v. EVANS et al. (SIMPSON et al. Interveners.

No. 24035.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 30, 1932

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Robert M. Jones, Judge.

Action by George H. Rummens against Don H. Evans, Wilmer B. Brinton and John A. Earley, as the duly elected, qualified, and acting Commissioners of King County, Washington, and others wherein Margaret G. Simpson and others intervened. From a judgment dismissing the action, plaintiff and named intervener appeal.

Affirmed.

Rummens & Griffin and Wm. G. Long, all of Seattle, for plaintiff-appellant.

Hyland Elvidge & Alvord, W. C. Hinman, and Marion Zioncheck, all of Seattle, for intervener-appellant.

Wm. R. Bell, Robert M. Burgunder, and Arthur M. Hare, all of Seattle, for respondents.

HOLCOMB J.

On May 24, 1932, the board of county commissioners of King county unanimously adopted a resolution declaring, in substance:

(1) That the constitutional debt limit of King county has been reached and that no election can be held for authority to exceed the debt limit until November, 1932.

(2) That 17,000 families, or in excess of 50,000 persons, in King county are now and for many months have been destitute and indigent requiring the furnishing of food, shelter, and supplies from public funds of the county to preserve their health and prevent their starvation.

(3) That a grave public emergency exists which, unless provided for, may seriously endanger the public health and the preservation of order within King county.

(4) That, in the opinion of the board, it is a necessary governmental function imposed by the Constitution and law of this state to provide relief for such persons.

(5) That a governmental emergency exists requiring the incurring of obligations in excess of the constitutional debt limit for the purpose of providing for such persons.

(6) That it may be advisable that poor and destitute, but able-bodied persons, in consideration for such relief as may be extended to them, shall perform such work and labor as shall be provided for them.

(7) Appropriating $200,000 beyond the constitutional debt limit, in addition to the sums provided for in the budget in 1932, for the items included under operation and maintenance for the public welfare department of the county, which sum is to be used solely and exclusively for the purchase of food and providing shelter and supplies for the poor, destitute, indigent, and infirm persons of King county.

(8) That the auditor of King county shall draw a warrant or warrants, not exceeding such amount, on the current expense fund of the county, chargeable to the operation and maintenance of the public welfare department of the county, payable to such persons or organizations as shall hereafter be designated in voucher or vouchers approved by the county commissioners.

On May 25, 1932, appellant Rummens commenced an action in the superior court for King county against the county commissioners, county auditor, and King county, to enjoin the issuance of such warrants, and on the same day appellant Margaret G. Simpson intervened in that action, joining with plaintiff therein in seeking the same relief. Thereafter, respondent Dan Madison and United Producers' League of King county intervened in the action interposing demurrers to the complaint of Rummens and Simpson. In his complaint in intervention Madison alleged, inter alia, that without fault on his part and in spite of diligence and constant effort he had been unable to secure sufficient work for several months last past to support his family, and that he and his family had been compelled to depend on the county and charitable institutions for a part of their sustenance; that his children have not sufficient and proper food and are often forced to attend school without lunch; that he and his family are barely receiving sufficient food to sustain them and that he will be forced to depend for part of their food during the next several months on King county and charitable institutions; that he, as well as the 50,000 other men, women, and children dependent on the county for part of their food, are vitally and directly interested in the outcome and determination of the action and in having the court declare the warrants to be issued under the resolution of the county board as valid obligations against King county when and as issued.

Thereafter, appellant Rummens and Mrs. Simpson filed amended complaints and by a stipulation of all the parties the demurrers above mentioned were deemed to have been interposed against the amended complaints.

The material allegations of the amended complaint of appellant Rummens are:

(1) That on or about May 24, 1932, the commissioners of King county adopted the resolution above referred to, and that defendants are about to issue or cause to be issued the warrants described in the resolution; that wherever in the resolution the word 'constitutional' appears, the board intended the word 'statutory,' and wherever in the resolution the word 'value' appears, the board intended the words 'assessed value'; that in truth and in fact the constitutional debt limit of King county of 1 1/2 per cent. of the value of the taxable property in King county has not been reached; (2) that the statutory debt limit of 1 1/2 per cent. of the assessed value of the taxable property of King county has been reached, and that no election has been or can be held until November, 1932, authorizing the commissioners to exceed the statutory indebtedness; (3) that King county has in cash in the road and bridge fund, river improvement fund, road districts No. 2 and No. 3, in excess of $388,000, and that subsequent collections for the year 1932 in those funds will be in excess of $215,000; that of such sums not more than $50,000 is necessary for road, bridges, and river maintenance, and that no new construction is necessary to promote public safety; that only a small portion of such funds are obligated, and virtually all thereof are now and will be available for use in carrying out the purposes specified in the resolution, and that if the statutory debt limit can be exceeded at all for the purpose specified in the resolution it can only be done after the county commissioners have diverted for such purposes the money in the aforesaid funds; that such road, bridge, and river improvement funds are ample for the purposes set forth in the resolution for several months to come; (4) that by reason of the premises the issuance of the warrants authorized in such resolution is unlawful and unnecessary, and unless enjoined will impose an illegal burden upon the taxpayers of King county.

The amended complaint of intervener Simpson makes the same allegations and in addition thereto alleges, in substance: (1) That King county has been and now is engaged in nongovernmental functions, the expenditures for which can be immediately greatly reduced or completely eliminated in an amount of not less than $150,000 for the remainder of the tax year and can, without impairing governmental efficiency, immediately effect economies in governmental functions in an amount of an additional $500,000 for the remainder of the tax year, and that the funds saved for such economies will amply provide for the purposes recited in the resolution; (2) that of the persons described in the resolution as having received, and receiving, aid from the public funds of King county, 85 per cent. are resident in the city of Seattle, and that the city has for a long time past been and now is engaged in nongovernmental functions, the reduction or elimination of which would make available for the care of the destitute of Seattle an additional $500,000 for the remainder of the tax year; that the city, without impairing governmental efficiency, can immediately effect economies in the performance of the governmental functions in an additional amount of not less than $1,000,000 for the remainder of the tax year; that to date the city has made no reductions in public expense with respect to either governmental or nongovernmental functions; that such economies, if effected by Seattle, would make many hundreds of thousands of dollars available for the provision of food and supplies for the destitute and indigent of the city; that King county has sources of revenue not yet drawn upon in any manner whatsoever, in that it has not levied any gasoline or other excise or occupational, or other taxes not a direct charge upon real or personal property from which hundreds of thousands of dollars for the relief of the destitute and indigent persons and families of King county can be immediately raised.

On June 18, 1932, the superior court sustained the demurrers appellants elected in open court to stand upon their respective complaints, and the court made and entered its formal order sustaining the demurrers and dismissing the action. From this judgment a...