Waldron v. City of Snohomish

• Decision Date: 03 February 1906
• Parties: WALDRON v. CITY OF SNOHOMISH et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

83 P. 1106

41 Wash. 566

WALDRON v. CITY OF SNOHOMISH et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 3, 1906

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; John C. Denney, Judge.

Mandamus on relation of C. W. Waldron, against the city of Snohomish and others. From a decree granting the writ, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

W. H Abel, A. M. Abel, and John W. Miller, for appellants.

Frank D. Nash and Cooley & Horan, for respondent.

ROOT, J.

Relator instituted this proceeding to compel the city of Snohomish to make a reassessment, in order to pay certain special fund warrants held by him. From a judgment and decree directing such reassessment, this appeal is taken.

Appellants filed a motion to quash the writ, and later a demurrer to the writ and application; said motion and demurrer being denied and overruled. Thereupon appellants made answer, presenting the following defenses: (1) Plea in abatement, alleging that the terms of office of G. L. Turner, as mayor, and F. S Anderson and W. O. Dolsen, as councilmen, had expired, and that F. S. Anderson had succeeded Turner as mayor, and that H. D. James and Matt Albert were successors as councilmen to Anderson and Dolsen; (2) certain denials of allegations in the application and writ; (3) a plea of estoppel based on the acceptance by Palmer and Plaskett, the original owners of the warrants, of certain payments theretofore made; (4) a plea of laches, to the effect that said Palmer and Plaskett and all subsequent holders, including relator, had full notice and knowledge of the alleged defects in the original assessment and acquiesced therein for an unreasonable length of time. The relator filed a reply controverting the affirmative defenses. Upon the trial the relator moved the court to substitute as defendants E. L. Colburn, S.D. Dunn, and C. T Mescher, in place of defendants F. M. Evans, C. D. Slater, and C. H. Crippen, whose terms of office as officials of said city had expired, which motion was granted. The original application alleged that the ordinance under which the work was done was 'duly' passed.

Appellants urge that under this allegation the relator could not be permitted to prove that the same was invalid. We think there is no merit in this contention. The application alleged that the ordinance in an action in the superior court was adjudged void, and the proceedings thereunder held to be of no validity or effect. Appellants contend that this allegation was insufficient, as it does not show that said adjudication was 'duly or regularly given or made,' under the provisions of the statute, and does not state who were the parties thereto. We do not think this contention can be sustained. These were matters of evidence. Appellants claim that the petition alleges the original ordinance to have been 'adjudged void,' but does not affirmatively allege that it was actually void. This contention has nothing to commend it. It is urged that the former adjudications, wherein said original assessment ordinance and a reassessment ordinance were held to be invalid, were binding only upon the parties and their privies. Under the statutory provisions for reassessments any person holding warrants is entitled to plead any former adjudications holding void the assessments made to pay for the work on account of which his warrants were issued. The right is not confined to the parties to that particular action and their privies or successors in interest.

The original...