State v. King County

• Decision Date: 15 June 1908
• Citation: 96 P. 156,49 Wash. 619
• Parties: STATE ex rel. POTTER et al. v. KING COUNTY et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

96 P. 156

49 Wash. 619

STATE ex rel. POTTER et al. v. KING COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 15, 1908

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; R. B. Albertson, Judge.

Action by the state of Washington, on the relation of M. L. Potter and others, against King County and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Roger S. Greene, Kenneth Mackintosh, H. A. P. Myers, and E. B Herold, for appellants.

Shepard & Flett, for respondents Potter and others.

John H Powell and E. F. Blaine, pro se.

DUNBAR, J.

A detailed statement of this case can be found on page 519 of 45 Wash. and on page 935 of 88 Pac., where it was held that a county has no power to issue its negotiable bonds in aid of the acquisition by the United States of a completed ship canal in said county, payable to the contractor upon completion of the canal and its acceptance by the government. The case was brought by taxpayers seeking to enjoin the issuance of such bonds. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the lower court. Judgment of dismissal was entered. From such judgment appeal was taken, and the judgment was reversed. The respondent in that case then sought to have the necessary power conferred by express statutory provision, and the Legislature of 1907 enacted the following (page 348, c. 159, Sess. Laws 1907):

'Section 1. That whenever the board of county commissioners of any county of the first class in this state shall deem it for the interest of the county to construct or to aid the United States in constructing a canal to connect any bodies of water within the county, such county is hereby authorized to construct such canal or to aid the United States in constructing the same and to incur indebtedness for such purpose to an amount not exceeding five hundred thousand ($500,000.00) dollars and to issue the negotiable bonds of the county therefor in the manner and form provided in sections 1846 to 1851, inclusive, of Ballinger's Annotated Codes and Statutes of Washington.

'Sec. 2. That such purpose is hereby declared to be a county purpose.

'Sec. 3. That in all cases where within one year next prior to the passage of this act any county has undertaken or attempted, or is undertaking or attempting to construct or to aid the United States in constructing any such canal or within said time has been or is incurring or attempting to incur indebtedness or to issue its bonds in manner and form above mentioned, for any such purpose to an amount not exceeding five hundred thousand ($500,000.00) dollars, all such action by such county and all such indebtedness and bonds are hereby validated and confirmed and such county is authorized to proceed with the matter under the provisions of this act.'

The title of the act was as follows: 'An act relating to the power of counties of the first class to construct or aid in the construction of canals, and declaring an emergency.' After the passage of the act aforesaid the defendants, the appellants here, filed an answer in the lower court, setting up that statute by way of affirmative defense. To this affirmative defense the plaintiffs and intervenders demurred. These demurrers were sustained, and, electing to stand on their answers, judgment was entered against them, and from such judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

It is the contention of the respondents (1) that the act of the Legislature above quoted was ineffectual to cure the lack of statutory authority for the issuance of the bonds; (2) that the issuance of the bonds would be contrary to the Constitution; (3) that they were not issued in conformity with the provisions of the statute. Under the former ruling of this court above referred to, it is the established law of this case that the county commissioners have no authority to issue these bonds unless the act of 1907 has validated the previous action of the county commissioners, and the election held under their direction. The first contention of the respondents is that the provisions of section 3 of the act being the portion of the act which attempts to validate the action of the county commissioners and the people, are unconstitutional, for the reason that such validating features of the act are not expressed in the title. In the discussion of this question, the appellants in their opening brief cite many cases from this court illustrating the extent to which the court has gone in sustaining laws against this constitutional objection. It is true that we have been loath, as courts generally are, to declare the enactments of the Legislature void by reason of this or any other constitutional objection, and have uniformly held that trivial errors in describing the title of the act amended would not vitiate the title of the amending act where it was obvious that there was no tendency to mislead; that the constitutional provision should be reasonably construed and...