State v. Clausen
Decision Date | 06 March 1917 |
Docket Number | 13986. |
Citation | 163 P. 744,95 Wash. 214 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE ex rel. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF PIERCE COUNTY v. CLAUSEN, State Auditor. |
Petition for mandamus by the State of Washington, on the relation of the Board of County Commissioners of Pierce County, against C. W. Clausen, as State Auditor. Writ to issue.
Fred G Remann, of Tacoma, and J. T. S. Lyle, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Scott Z. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and P. C. Sullivan, of Tacoma, E. S. McCord, of Seattle, and Clinton W. Howard, of Bellingham, of counsel), for relator.
W. V Tanner, Atty. Gen., and R. E. Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen , for respondent.
On January 6, 1917, a special election was held in Pierce county at which the voters of that county authorized the incurring of an indebtedness not exceeding, exclusive of interest, the sum of $2,000,000, the proceeds of such indebtedness to be used in acquiring approximately 70,000 acres of land in the county to be, when acquired, conveyed to the federal government for a permanent mobilization, training, and supply station. The election resulted in the casting of 25,049 votes in favor of and 4,135 votes against the proposition. For the purpose of removing all legal obstacles to the incurring of this indebtedness and to insure the carrying out of its purposes by Pierce county, as well as authorizing counties generally aiding such undertakings, the Legislature at its 1917 session enacted two laws herein referred to as chapter 3 and chapter 4 of the Laws of 1917. The first of these acts chapter 3, is a compulsory act, applying to Pierce county alone, while the second, chapter 4, is a voluntary act, applicable to any county within this state. Subsequent to the passage of chapter 3 the county commissioners of Pierce county accepted the provisions of the act, under the authorization of the people as expressed at the election, and for that purpose expressed their intention to incur an indebtedness not exceeding the sum of $2,000,000, exclusive of interest, and to issue and sell county bonds for the purpose of acquiring, by condemnation or otherwise, the 70,000 acres, and conveying them to the United States for a permanent mobilization, training, and supply station. Thereafter the state board of finance entered into a contract with the board of county commissioners to purchase these bonds to the value of $50,000 and pay for the same out of the permanent school funds. The state auditor was directed to issue a warrant upon the permanent school fund in the sum of $50,000 in payment of these bonds, which he refused. Relator then came to this court and sued out this writ of mandate, by which we are asked to compel the state auditor to issue his warrant in order that the same may be used in the purchase of these bonds as contemplated by the state board of finance. This calls for an examination into the legal sufficiency of these acts, since if there is any valid law authorizing the issuance of these bonds by Pierce county, the duty of the state auditor is purely a ministerial one that can be controlled by an appropriate writ of this court. A sufficient understanding of chapter 3 may be had from its title and sections 1 and 2 of the act, which are follows:
Section 1 of chapter 4 is the same as section 1 of chapter 3. Section 2 authorizes any county in the state to incur an indebtedness...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Lakeland
... ... compel lot owners to build local improvements solely for ... their benefit. There exists no provision in the Constitution ... of this state which authorizes, or empowers the Legislature ... to authorize, municipalities to compel owners of lots to ... build local improvements solely for ... the people of the state at large. See, also, State ex ... rel. Board of Com'rs of Pierce County v. Clausen, 95 ... Wash. 214, 163 P. 744, Steiner v. Sullivan, 74 Minn ... 498, 77 N.W. 286, and the full discussion in Cooley, Taxation ... (4th Ed.)§ ... ...
-
Texas Co. v. Cohn
... 112 P.2d 522 8 Wn.2d 360 TEXAS CO. et al. v. COHN, Director of Licenses of State of Washington, et al. Nos. 28173-28187. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. April 17, 1941 ... Consolidated ... suits for ... The ... power of taxation by the state is a sovereign power ... State ex rel. Board of Com'rs v. Clausen, 95 ... Wash. 214, 163 P. 744. The necessity of compliance with ... Rem.Rev.Stat. § 11007, is to be determined by the capacity in ... ...
-
Amos v. Mathews
...may be some incidental and indirect general benefit. See Cook v. Port of Portland, 20 Or. 580, 27 P. 263, 13 L. R. A. 533; State v. Clausen, 95 Wash. 214, 163 P. 744; Steiner v. Sullivan, 74 Minn. 498, 77 N.W. Cooley, Taxation (4th Ed.) § 315. See, also, Hunter v. Owens, 80 Fla. 812, 86 So.......
-
Valley County v. Thomas
... ... It is ... unnecessary to detail the answer further, except to state ... that it sufficiently tendered the issues whether automobiles ... "owned or taxable" within Fort Peck townsite were ... "owned or taxable" ... It is a ... legislative power following the more general power to make ... laws. State ex rel. Board of Commissioners v ... Clausen, 95 Wash. 214, 163 P. 744. *** The taxing power ... of the state is never presumed to have been relinquished ... unless the language in which the ... ...