Sheldon v. Purdy

Decision Date16 June 1897
Citation17 Wash. 135,49 P. 228
PartiesSHELDON v. PURDY, COUNTY TREASURER (BLAINE NAT. BANK, INTERVENER. HARRIS ET AL. v. SAME.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Appeals from superior court, Whatcom county; John R. Winn, Judge.

Separate actions by C. L. Sheldon and N.W. Harris and others co-partners as Harris & Co., against E. W. Purdy, for mandamus. The Blaine National Bank intervened in each case. From judgments in favor of the intervener, and denying plaintiffs' applications for mandamus, plaintiffs appeal and by agreement submit their cases together. Affirmed.

Ira Bronson, for appellant Sheldon.

Burke Shepard & McGilvra, for appellants Harris and others.

Kerr & McCord and Black & Leaming, for respondent bank.

Fairchild & Bruce, for respondent Purdy.

REAVIS J.

Plaintiff Sheldon made application for a writ of mandamus to compel defendant Purdy, as treasurer of Whatcom county, to pay coupons due upon bonds issued by school district No. 25 which coupons were for interest due on bonds November, 1893 and 1894. The affidavit for the writ stated that the treasurer had funds in his hands belonging to the school district sufficient to pay the coupons. The county treasurer answered that the plaintiff's bonds were an issue of $10,000, made November 1, 1891, and that November 1, 1890, a prior issue of bonds, a part of the same series, and under the same vote of authorization, was made by the district, amounting to $30,000, the interest upon which since November 1, 1893, is also in default; that the school district's money in his hands is in two funds, one of which is known as the general or apportionment fund, and is composed chiefly of moneys apportioned to said district by the county superintendent on the general school funds of the county by taxation in the county for general school purposes, which comprise also moneys received from the state of Washington from the permanent school fund, and the other of the funds is known as the special fund of the school district, and is composed and made up of the taxes collected from the special levy of taxes ordered by the directors, which was made for the purpose of, and in an amount at that time by the board deemed to be sufficient to pay and defray, all current expenses of the school district, including interest on bonds and outstanding warrants issued for current expenses, and that no levy or order was made for a tax to be applied exclusively for the payment of interest on any bonds of the district. The plaintiffs N.W. Harris & Co. were the owners of the $30,000 issue of bonds mentioned in the treasurer's answer, and likewise presented interest coupons due on said bonds, amounting to $1,050, to the county treasurer, and demanded payment of their interest, and applied to the superior court for a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling the county treasurer to pay their interest coupons. In each action the Blaine National Bank intervened, and alleged: That the $40,000 series of bonds issued by the school district and held by the plaintiffs in both actions was issued by authority of a special election called by the school district in pursuance of the statute to vote upon the proposition of allowing the district to borrow money and issue negotiable coupon bonds therefor to the amount of $40,000; said money to be used for the following purposes: "First. In constructing a central school house or building on block No. seventeen in Warren's First addition to the town of Blaine, Whatcom county, Washington, and for providing the same with all necessary furniture and apparatus. Second. For purchasing lots Nos. four, five, and six in block No. seventeen of the original town site of Blaine, Whatcom county, Washington, at an agreed price of five hundred dollars per lot, as a school house site, and for the purpose of constructing on the said site a ward school house or building, and to provide the same with the necessary furniture and apparatus. Third. For purchasing lots Nos. two, three, and four in block No. two in Rostangh's First addition to the town of Blaine, Whatcom county, Washington, as a school site or sites, at an agreed price of five hundred dollars per lot, and for the purpose of building thereon a ward school house or building, and to provide the same with all necessary furniture and apparatus. Fourth. For the purpose of funding and redeeming the then outstanding indebtedness of the said school district; said bonds, if issued, to bear a rate of interest not to exceed ten per cent. per annum, payable semiannually, and to be payable in twenty years from date." That at the date of the issuance of the bonds there were outstanding a large amount of warrants issued by the school district for current expenses in support of the school, which warrants were, by the terms and conditions upon which the bonds were issued, to be funded, and to be paid by the proceeds of the sale of the bonds, and prior to the date of the issuance of the last series, the $10,000, dated November 1, 1891, the district issued a large amount of warrants for moneys due for the purchase of school-house sites, and also for money due for labor performed in the construction of a school house. That the intervener is the holder and owner of the warrants issued for the purchase of the school-house site to the amount of $164.34, and of the warrants issued for the construction of the school house in the amount of $127.90, and of the warrants which were to be funded and paid by the moneys received from the sale of the bonds, the amount of $374.50. That the intervener also owns and is in possession of the other warrants of the school district, issued for the current expenses incidental and necessary to the maintenance of the school, to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Rich v. Williams
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1959
    ...the 'income thereof be used exclusively for University purposes.' This Court, in so deciding, adopted the reasoning of Sheldon v. Purdy, 17 Wash. 135, 49 P. 228, 230; therein the Washington Supreme Court, in deciding a similar matter, held that the extraordinary expenditures necessitated by......
  • Sheehan v. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 10, 2005
    ...not simply to the method of taxation but rather the relationship between the tax and the purpose of the tax. See Sheldon v. Purdy, 17 Wash. 135, 141, 49 P. 228 (1897). For example, the objects of the taxes in this case are the Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan and Phase I of the Seattle......
  • League of Women Voters of Wash. v. State
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 4, 2015
    ...rel. State Bd. for Vocational Educ. v. Yelle, 199 Wash. 312, 316–17, 91 P.2d 573 (1939) (vocational rehabilitation); Sheldon v. Purdy, 17 Wash. 135, 141, 49 P. 228 (1897) (interest on school district bonds); Bryan, 51 Wash. at 505, 99 P. 28 (schools attached to teacher training colleges); S......
  • Stene v. School Bd. of Beresford Independent School Dist., No. 68 of Union County
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1973
    ...Dakota Constitution, reading exactly like ours, differs from the Kansas Constiution, is clearly wrong. The statement in Sheldon v. Purdy, supra (17 Wash. 135, 49 P. 228), stating that courts hold to the rule that a fund, raised by taxation for onr purpose, cannot be diverted to another even......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT