Uhler v. City of Olympia

• Decision Date: 17 November 1915
• Docket Number: 12891.
• Citation: 87 Wash. 1,152 P. 998
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: UHLER v. CITY OF OLYMPIA.

152 P. 998

87 Wash. 1

UHLER v. CITY OF OLYMPIA.

No. 12891.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

November 17, 1915

Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; D. F. Wright, Judge.

On petition for rehearing. Petition denied.

For former opinion, see 151 P. 117.

Ballinger, Battle, Hulbert & Shorts, of Seattle, for appellant.

George Bigelow and P. M. Troy, both of Olympia, for respondent.

CHADWICK, J.

A petition for rehearing has been filed in this case, in which the court is informed that the city council of Olympia has since the original decision was pronounced, repealed Ordinance No. 1372, which limited the bond issue to $90,000. It is contended that under that part of the decision wherein the court said:

'Coming to the case at bar, after the voters had fixed the amount of the bond issue at 'ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) as near as may be,' which would no doubt have sustained a greater issue, the city, by supplemental ordinance, forced the aid of the general fund by limiting the issue of its special fund bonds to the sum of $90,000'

--the city, having repealed the limitation, has power to issue bonds to the extent of $10,000 in excess of the $90,000, or such sum as may be necessary to cover the items referred to in the original opinion, barring the amount agreed to be paid as a commission and for the printing of the bonds. Reliance is put upon the words, ' which would no doubt have sustained a greater issue.'

After mature consideration, it is the opinion of the judges including the writer of the original opinion, that these words were inadvertently used, and that the contention of the city cannot be sustained under the statute and the general rules of law, which have been sufficiently referred to in the opinion of the court, or under the ordinance providing for the purchase of the waterworks system. It was the understanding of the court that an issue of bonds for some inconsequential sum above the limit of $90,000 might be sustained; that is, that the purpose of the statute was to compel a reasonably definite estimate of the value of the thing to be purchased, beyond which the council could not go, unless to cover slight omissions which, upon consideration a court might ignore under the maxim 'de minimus non curat lex.'

But to hold that a sum equal to 10 per cent. of the whole issue would be a sufficient compliance would be holding in effect that there might be no limit at all. If the court should assume to define the limit of increase, it could find no reasonable or definite ground upon which to base its judgment. Could it say that an increase of 10 per cent. was within the intent of the people when voting upon the measure and that 15 per cent. was an increase so substantial that we could...