State v. Superior Court In and For Ferry County

Decision Date22 November 1927
Docket Number20816.
Citation145 Wash. 551,261 P. 90
PartiesSTATE ex rel. PORTER v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR FERRY COUNTY et al.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 1.

Original action by the State of Washington, on the relation of Samuel Porter, against the Superior Court in and for Ferry County C. H. Neal, Judge, to review a judgment of the superior court, affirming an order of the board of county commissioners declaring an emergency in the office of sheriff. Judgment affirmed.

Samuel Porter, of Republic, for relator.

John H Dunbar and E. W. Anderson, both of Olympia, amici curiae.

James T. Johnson, of Republic, for respondent.

TOLMAN J.

This is an original action brought in this court to secure a review of a judgment entered by the superior court for Ferry county affirming an order of the board of county commissioners declaring that an emergency exists in the office of the sheriff of that county, and appropriating money to meet the emergency.

It appears that on July 5, 1927, the board of county commissioners, by unanimous vote, adopted a resolution as follows:

'Ernest Clemens, sheriff of Ferry county, Wash., appeared before the board and stated that the budget of his office has become exhausted and depleted in several of its departments to wit, gasoline, oil, repairs, labor, tires, records and supplies, deputy hire, and board for county prisoners, and asked that an emergency appropriation for $1,000 be made by the county, through this board, to carry said sheriff's office through the balance of this year.
'Said matter having been carefully investigated by all members of the board, Mr. Inman offered the following resolution, to wit: Be it resolved that a public emergency exists in the office of the sheriff of Ferry county, Wash., in the following amounts, to wit:

Gasoline, oil, repairs, and labor ...

$ 300 00

Tires .................................

125 00

Records and supplies ...................

15 00

Deputy hire ...........................

360 00

Board for county prisoners ............

200 00

---------

Total ..............................

$1,000 00

'That such deficiency could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time of making the county budget for the year 1927, and that it is now necessary for the proper and efficient operation of said sheriff's office that such emergency appropriation be made so that said sheriff's office can function continually and in all its departments during the balance of the present year, 1927.
'Mr. Inman thereupon moved the adoption of the foregoing resolution, which was seconded by Mr. White, and was thereupon voted upon and carried by the unanimous vote of all three members of the board, voting in favor of said resolution.
'Mr. Inman thereupon moved that said resolution and a notice that a public hearing thereon be held by this board at its office at the courthouse, at Republic, in Ferry county, Wash., on Monday, the 1st day of August, 1927, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon of said day, be published in both newspapers of the county so that taxpayers may appear and be heard for or against the expenditure of money for such alleged emergency, which motion was seconded by Mr. White and was thereupon voted upon and carried by the unanimous vote of all three members of the board.'

Due notice was given as required by the statute, detailed and specific objections were filed, which embodied the central idea that the board was well informed, at the time it adopted the budget for the year 1927, of the necessities of the sheriff's office, that the amount appropriated for that office was amply sufficient if the office were properly and economically administered; that the sheriff knew the facts, and yet that he, totally disregarding the situation, expended the appropriation in a reckless and extravagant manner; and that, therefore, there was no emergency. A hearing was had on the return day, and at the conclusion of the hearing the board, by unanimous vote----

'* * * ordered that the following emergency appropriation be allowed for the different departments of the sheriff's office, to wit:

Gas, oil, repairs, and labor ...

$300 00

Tires ...........................

125 00

Records and supplies .............

15 00

Deputy hire .....................

160 00

Board for county prisoners ......

100 00

--------

Total .........................

$700 00"

An appeal was taken to the superior court, in the manner provided by the statute. A hearing was had, evidence was received, and thereupon the superior court affirmed the order of the board of county commissioners.

The statute involved is section 2 of chapter 143, Laws of 1925, which, so far as is here in issue, reads as follows:

'Sec. 2. That section 6, c. 164, Laws of Washington 1923, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
'Sec. 6. When a public emergency other than such as are specifically described hereinafter, and which could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of making the budget, shall require the expenditure of money not provided for in the budget, the county commissioners by unanimous vote of the commissioners present at any meeting the time and place of which all the commissioners shall have had reasonable notice, shall adopt and enter upon their minutes a resolution stating the facts constituting the emergency, and the estimated amount of money required to meet the emergency, and shall publish the same, together with a notice that a public hearing thereon will be held at the time and place designated therein but which shall not be less than one week after the date of said publication, at which any taxpayer may appear and be heard for or against the expenditure of money for such alleged emergency. Such resolution and notice shall be published once in the official county newspaper, or if there be none, in a newspaper of general circulation in the county. Upon the conclusion of said hearing, if the county commissioners shall approve of said emergency expenditure, they shall make and enter upon their official minutes by a unanimous vote of all the members of the board of county commissioners an order setting forth the facts constituting the emergency, together with the amount of expenditure authorized by them therefor, which order, so entered, shall be lawful authorization for them to expend said amount for said purpose, subject, however, to the following limitations: No expenditure shall be made or liability incurred pursuant to said order until a period of five (5) days, exclusive of the day of entry of said order, shall have elapsed, during which time any taxpayer or taxpayers of such county feeling aggrieved by said order may appeal therefrom to the superior court of such county by filing with the clerk of such court a verified petition, a copy of which shall have theretofore been served upon the County Auditor of such county as clerk of the board of county commissioners. Such petition shall set forth in detail the objections of petitioner or petitioners to such order and his or their reasons why the alleged emergency does not exist. The service and filing of such petition shall operate to suspend said emergency order and the authority to make any expenditure or incur any liability thereunder until final determination of the matter by the court. Upon the filing of such petition the court shall immediately fix a time for hearing such petition which shall be at the earliest convenient date. At said hearing the court shall hear the matter de novo and may take such testimony as it deems necessary. Its proceedings shall be summary and informal and its determination as to whether an emergency such as is contemplated within the meaning and purpose of this act exists or not and whether the expenditure authorized by said order is excessive or not shall be final.
'Upon the happening of any emergency caused by fire, flood, explosion, storm, earthquake, epidemic, riot or insurrection, or for the immediate preservation of order or of public health or for the restoration to a condition of usefulness of any public property the usefulness of which has been destroyed by accident, or for the relief of a stricken community overtaken by a calamity, or in settlement of approved claims for personal injuries or property damages exlusive of claims arising from the operation of any public utility owned by the county, or to meet mandatory expenditures required by any law the county commissioners may, upon the adoption by the unanimous vote of the commissioners present at any meeting the time and place of which all of such commissioners shall have had reasonable notice, of a resolution stating the facts constituting the emergency and entering the same upon their minutes, make the expenditures necessary to meet such emergency without further notice or hearing.'

This statute seems to recognize two kinds of public emergencies. First, something other than the happening of events which are therein afterwards described; and, second, those...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • CLEAN v. City of Spokane
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 13 November 1997
    ...Pennock, 27 Wash.2d at 743-44, 179 P.2d 961).25 Gray, 29 Wash.2d at 806, 189 P.2d 637.26 Id. (quoting State ex rel. Porter v. Superior Court, 145 Wash. 551, 559, 261 P. 90 (1927)).27 Gray, 29 Wash.2d at 808, 189 P.2d 637 (emphasis in original).28 State ex rel. Humiston v. Meyers, 61 Wash.2d......
  • Weisfield v. City of Seattle
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 4 January 1935
    ... ... (MAXMILLIAN et al., Interveners. No. 25410. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. January 4, 1935 ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, King County; James B. Kinne, Judge ... wherein it was determined in State ex rel. Knez v ... Seattle, 176 Wash. 283, 28 P.2d ... ...
  • Love v. King County
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 11 April 1935
    ... ... KING COUNTY et al. (BOOTH, Intervener. No. 25576.Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.April 11, 1935 ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, King County; Malcolm Douglas, Judge ... Action ... state adopted Initiative Measure No. 94, and the same became ... effective ... ...
  • Raynor v. King County
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 6 January 1940
    ... ... KING COUNTY et al. No. 27792. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc January 6, 1940 ... Action ... G. Raynor against King County, a Class A. County of the ... State of Washington, Ralph S. Stacy, as Treasurer of King ... County, and ... Appeal ... from [2 Wn.2d 202] Superior Court, King County; Clinton H ... Hartson, Judge pro tem ... purpose of operating the ferry Washington, at a time there ... was a strike. Desirable as it may ... ...
  • 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