State ex rel. Taylor v. Superior Court for King County

• Decision Date: 07 February 1940
• Docket Number: 27872.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. TAYLOR et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR KING COUNTY et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

98 P.2d 985

2 Wn.2d 575

STATE ex rel. TAYLOR et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR KING COUNTY et al.

No. 27872.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

February 7, 1940

Proceeding by the State of Washington, on the relation of Jack Taylor and others, as County Commissioners of King County, to review the judgment of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County in an mandamus proceeding brought by Earl Millikin, as County Auditor of King County, and others against the County Commissioners of King County.

Affirmed.

GERAGHTY and BEALS, JJ., dissenting.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Chester A batchelor, judge.

B. Gray Warner and F. M. Reischling, both of Seattle, for relators and appellants.

Weter Roberts & Shefelman and Edwin C. Ewing, all of Seattle, for respondents.

W. G. McLaren, of Seattle, and Ralph E. Foley and Harvey Erickson, both of Spokane, amici curiae.

SIMPSON Justice.

This proceeding is by way of a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the superior court of King county in a mandamus proceeding.

Prior to October 1, 1939, the respondent officers filed with the auditor of King county detailed and itemized estimates both of the probable revenues from sources other than taxation and of all expenditures required by their respective offices for the ensuing fiscal year of 1940. Thereafter, the auditor, pursuant to the requirements of Rem.Rev.Stat. § 3997-2, prepared the budget for King county. The expenditure section of the budget set forth the estimated expenditures of each of the county offices for the year 1940. The estimates were itemized and classified under the general classes of (1) 'Salaries and Wages', (2) 'Maintenance and Operation', and (3) 'Capital Outlay'. The county commissioners thereafter published notice that the hearing upon the budget would be held October 2, 1939. On that date they met and passed a resolution which, omitting the preamble, reads as follows:

'1. That there be established a Division of Purchases, the head of which shall be the County Purchasing Agent, appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, who shall receive such a salary and give such bond as may be fixed by separate resolution, and who shall, subject to the supervision and control of the Board of County Commissioner, appoint, supervise and control all employees of said Division, as provided by the laws of the State of Washington vesting control of the county business in the Board of County Commissioners.

'2. The County Purchasing Agent, except as otherwise provided by statute, shall have the power and it shall be his duty to purchase and/or contract for all supplies, materials and equipment used or needed by the various county offices, departments, services or institutions in the administration of county business.

'3. All funds appropriated by the Board of County Commissioners for the year 1940 in accordance with Rem.Rev.Stat. §§ 3997-1 to 3997-10 for 'Capital Outlay' and 'Operation and Maintenance' for the various county offices, departments, services or institutions, shall be expended by the County Purchasing Agent under the exclusive direction of the Board of County Commissioners, except as otherwise provided by statute.

'4. That a detailed system of centralized county purchasing shall be adopted by subsequent resolution of the Board of County Commissioners.'

Each of respondent officers, at the conclusion of the hearing on the budget, demanded that the county commissioners allocate and appropriate to him, as such county officer, proper and sufficient amounts for expenditure by him under the classifications of 'Maintenance and Operation' and 'Capital Outlay'. The relators refused to comply with the demand. They stated that the appropriations for the various county officers would be expended through the Division of Purchases and by the County Purchasing Agent, and that the respondents would not be permitted to make purchases for the maintenance and operation or for capital outlay necessary for the operation of their offices.

Respondent officers then instituted the proceeding of mandamus by which they sought to compel the county commissioners to allocate to each of them the funds necessary to conduct their offices, and to be allowed to purchase their own supplies.

The relators demurred to the application for the writ upon several grounds. The court did not decide the question raised by the demurrer at the time it was presented but stated that he would hear the case and make his decision at its conclusion.

At the termination of the trial, findings of fact and conclusions of law were made, and a judgment and decree entered favorable to respondents.

The judgment and decree provided for the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the county commissioners to make provision for, and to appropriate and allocate to the offices of auditor, clerk, and treasurer, proper and sufficient amounts for expenditure by them under the classifications of 'Maintenance and Operation' and 'Capital Outlay'. The decree further provided that the respondent officers be permitted to make the expenditures and incur the liabilities under the classifications for their respective offices, and make the purchases represented thereby.

Relators submit ten assignments of error, all of which may be considered under the fifth assignment, which states that the court erred in holding that the county officers personally have the right to purchase the supplies necessary for the operation and maintenance of their respective offices, contrary to the expressed intent of the county commissioners to make the purchases.

The question for consideration is: Does the board of county commissioners have the power to set up under their direction and control a division of purchases, appoint as the head thereof a county purchasing agent, to prohibit the county officers making purchases for their offices, and to provide that all supplies needed by the officers shall be made by the purchasing agent?

In order to arrive at a decision it will be necessary to examine our constitution and statutes, and the proceedings of the legislature, and to ascertain therefrom the powers and duties of the county commissioners, and those of the county clerk, county auditor and county treasurer.

Preliminary to consideration and review of the relevant provisions of the constitution and statutes, we deem it proper to mention some of the basic principles relative to the powers and duties of county corporate entity.

Counties are but arms or agencies of the state organized to carry out or perform some functions of state government. They, as instrumentalities of the state, have no powers except those expressly conferred by the constitution and state laws, or those which are reasonably or necessarily implied from the granted powers. State ex rel. Board of Commissioners v. Clausen, 95 Wash. 214, 163 P. 744; Great Northern R. Co. v. Stevens County, 108 Wash. 238, 183 P. 65; State ex rel. City of Spokane v. De Graff,

143 Wash. 326, 255 P. 371; Spokane County v. Certain Lots in Spokane, 156 Wash. 393, 287 P. 675; Carpenter v. Okanogan County, 163 Wash. 18, 299 P. 400; 14 Am.Jur., Counties, § 5, p. 188.

The officers concerned in this litigation, the county commissioners, county clerk, county auditor, and county treasurer, are servants of the county and as such have only those powers which have been expressly delegated to them by specific statutory language or by necessary implication therefrom. Green v. Okanogan County, 60 Wash. 309, 111 P. 226, 114 P. 457; Northwestern Improvement Co. v. McNeil, 100 Wash. 22, 170 P. 338; Spokane, Portland & Seattle Ry. Co. v. Franklin County, 106 Wash. 21, 179 P. 113; Sasse v. King County, 196 Wash. 242, 82 P.2d 536; 46 C.J. 1031, § 287.

Our statutes do not in express terms designate any officer whose duty it is to purchase supplies for the offices of clerk, auditor or treasurer.

The constitution of the state of Washington, Art. XI, § 5, provides: 'The legislature, by general and uniform laws, shall provide for the election in the several counties of boards of county commissioners, sheriffs, county clerks, treasurers, prosecuting attorneys, and other county, township, or precinct and district officers, as public convenience may require, and shall prescribe their duties and fix their term of office. It shall regulate the compensation of all such officers, in proportion to their duties, and for that purpose may classify the counties by population. And it shall provide for the strict accountability of such officers for all fees which may be collected by them, and for all public moneys which may be paid to them, or officially come into their possession.'

We find legislative direction concerning the powers and duties of county commissioners in the following sections of Rem.Rev.Stat.:

§ 3982. 'The several counties in this state shall have capacity as bodies corporate to sue and be sued in the manner prescribed by law; to purchase and hold lands within its own limits; to make such contracts, and to purchase and hold such personal property, as may be necessary to its corporate or administrative powers, and to do all other necessary acts in relation to all the property of the county.'

§ 3984. 'Its powers can only be exercised by the county commissioners, or by agents or officers acting under their authority or authority of law.'

§ 4032. 'The boards of county commissioners of the several counties of the state shall provide a suitable furnished office for each of the county officers in their respective courthouses.'

§ 4056. 'The several boards of county commissioners are authorized and required,----

'1. To provide for the erection and repairing of courthouses jails and other necessary public...