State v. Grimes

• Decision Date: 15 November 1893
• Citation: 34 P. 836,7 Wash. 270
• Parties: STATE EX REL. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 24 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY v. GRIMES, STATE AUDITOR.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

34 P. 836

7 Wash. 270

STATE EX REL. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 24 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY v. GRIMES, STATE AUDITOR.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 15, 1893

Original action in the name of the state at the relation of school district No. 24, Snohomish county, against L. R. Grimes state auditor, for mandamus. Judgment for relator.

Hoyt J., dissenting.

Phil Skillman, for relator.

W. C Jones, Atty. Gen., and Jas. A. Haight, for respondent.

SCOTT J.

This is an application to compel the respondent to draw a warrant against the permanent school fund in the sum of $35,000 in favor of the relator, to pay the purchase price of its school-district bonds. It is conceded that said bonds have been regularly issued, and are in all respects valid, and that they have been regularly sold to and purchased by the board of state land commissioners, and that there is money in the state treasury sufficient in amount for and applicable to the purchase of said bonds; and it is conceded that the sole reason why the respondent refused to issue the warrant therefor was because he was in doubt as to whether a school district is a municipal corporation, within the meaning of section 5, art. 16, of the constitution, and this is the only question presented. It is stipulated that the decision upon the petition and demurrer shall be conclusive of the case. There are a number of sections in the constitution bearing upon this proposition, which will furnish some light in arriving at a conclusion. For instance, a part of section 2, art. 7, reads as follows: "Provided further, that the property of the United States, and of the state, counties, school districts, and other municipal corporations, and such other property as the legislature may by general laws provide, shall be exempt from taxation." In section 6, art. 8, it is declared that "no county, city, town, school district or other municipal corporation, shall for any purpose become indebted in any manner to any amount exceeding one and one-half per centum of the taxable property in such county, city, town, school district or other municipal corporation, without the assent of three-fifths of the voters therein." Also that, "provided, that no part of the indebtedness allowed in this section, shall be incurred for any purpose other than strictly county, city, town, school district or other municipal purposes." Section 7, art. 8, declares that "no county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money or credit, to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation." In this last section school districts are not specially mentioned, and yet they would be included as municipal corporations. Maxon v. School Dist., 5 Wash. 142, 31 P. 462, and 32 P. 110. Section 5, art. 16, being the one especially in question, is as follows: "None of the permanent school fund shall ever be loaned to private persons or corporations, but it may be invested in national, state, county or municipal bonds." The question as to whether school districts are municipal corporations was discussed by this court in the case of Board v. Peterson, 4 Wash. 147, 29 P. 995. In considering the question generally we were of the opinion that they were such. And in Maxon v. School Dist., supra, when the question was before the court as to whether they were included within the term "municipal corporation," as used in the act of January 31, 1888, (1 Hill's Code, § 2415,) we held that they were included. It is contended that under the language of section 5, art. 16, aforesaid, a distinction should be made, and that the bonds of school districts should not be held to be included within that section. It will be noticed that in this section the word "city" is omitted, and the word "other" does not precede the word "municipal;" and, as counties are named, it is contended with some degree of force that if school districts were intended to be included they would have been mentioned also, or at least that the word "other" would have been employed. Undoubtedly school districts are not strictly municipal corporations, within the definitions given in the text-books; and in some of the states they have been held to be municipal corporations, and in others not, in construing the laws of the particular state. It will be noticed that this section prohibits the loaning of the permanent school fund to private persons or corporations, and it will not be contended that school districts are within the prohibition...