Twitchell v. City of Spokane

• Decision Date: 29 September 1909
• Citation: 104 P. 150,55 Wash. 86
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: TWITCHELL et al. v. CITY OF SPOKANE et al.

104 P. 150

55 Wash. 86

TWITCHELL et al. v. CITY OF SPOKANE et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 29, 1909

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Henry L Kennan, Judge.

Action by C. Twitchell and another, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, against the City of Spokane and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

William S. Lewis and Delbert Twitchell, for appellants.

L. R Hamblen, F. D. Allen, and Harry Rhodes, for respondents.

MOUNT J.

The appellants brought this action to obtain a reduction of water rates, and to restrain alleged wrongful use of water revenues by the city of Spokane. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and the action was dismissed. The plaintiffs appeal.

It appears that the city of Spokane owns and operates a water system for supplying the city and the inhabitants thereof with water for domestic purposes. The total cost and appraised value of the plant at about the time the action was begun was $2,338,749.35. Of this sum $827,154.38 has been paid from revenues derived from the water system. The balance, $1,511,591.97, was outstanding bonds and city warrants bearing interest. The total revenue from the water system for the year 1907 was $291,775.78. The expenditures amounted to $232,248.42, leaving a net balance of about $59,000. The expenditures included $68,200 for interest on bonds and warrants, $18,000 for redemption of warrants, and $86,030.90 for extension of water mains. Water was furnished by the city to itself and also to several charitable institutions free of charge. The rate charged consumers was 80 cents per month for a five-room house with bath, toilet, and lavatory, and for a lawn 60 by 135 feet $2.80 per year. It is contended by the appellant (1) that the transfer of certain moneys from the water fund to the general fund is illegal, and that such money should be applied to the payment of outstanding warrants against the water fund; (2) that the rates charged amount to an excessive tax on water consumers; (3) that the rates fixed are excessive; and (4) that the city has no right to sell water at a profit, or to furnish water free for municipal or charitable purposes.

The evidence shows that certain funds were transferred from the water account to the general fund. It is not clear that the funds so transferred were used for general purposes, but we assume that they were so used. We find nothing in the record to indicate that such money was required to be kept in a special fund, or that there were any outstanding overdue warrants to which it could have been applied. The matured obligations against the water fund all seem to have been met when due. When there is no requirement by statute or otherwise that money coming into the city treasury shall be kept in a special fund and applied to a particular purpose, it is proper, of course, to place it in the general fund, and to use it for general city purposes. If we understand counsel correctly, it is not claimed that any money derived from the sale of water or from the water system, which was necessary for the maintenance and expenses of the system, was transferred to the general fund, but it is claimed that the profits of the system after the expenses were paid were placed in the general fund, and that this was illegal; in other words, that the city is not authorized to sell water at such a rate as to make a profit. This is the point upon which the case of the appellants depends. It is, no doubt, true that courts will prevent the illegal disposition of public moneys, and that cities furnishing water to its inhabitants may not charge more than a reasonable rate, as argued...