Williams v. Shoudy

• Decision Date: 20 July 1895
• Citation: 12 Wash. 362,41 P. 169
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. SHOUDY, COUNTY TREASURER.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

41 P. 169

12 Wash. 362

WILLIAMS v. SHOUDY, COUNTY TREASURER.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 20, 1895

Appeal from superior court, Kittitas county; Carroll B. Graves Judge.

Application for a writ of mandamus by F. A. Williams against Dexter Shoudy, treasurer of Kittitas county. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Wager &amp Graves, for appellant.

Alfred E. Buell, R. E. Moody, and Burke, Shepard & Woods, for respondent.

GORDON, J.

The appellant is treasurer of Kittitas county, Wash. The respondent, being the owner and holder of certain warrants of said county, aggregating the sum of $375, drawn on the general fund and issued for the current expenses of the county during the years 1890 and 1891, all of which had prior to October 24, 1891, been presented for payment and indorsed, "not paid for want of funds," made an application in the lower court for a writ of mandate against the appellant, requiring him to pay said warrants, together with interest thereon at 10 per cent. from the several dates of presentation and indorsement. His affidavit in support of said application, in addition to what has been already stated, sets forth that, at the time of the issuance of said warrants, the valid indebtedness of said county was equal to 1 1/2 per cent. of the taxable property therein, as shown by the last assessment for state and county purposes made previous to such assessment; that the indebtedness for which said warrants were issued was attempted to be incurred without the assent of three-fifths of the voters of said county voting at an election held for that purpose, but that otherwise said warrants would be valid claims against said county. The affidavit further sets out that the board of county commissioners of the county had passed a resolution, for the purpose of submitting to the voters of the county the question of the ratification of certain indebtedness attempted to be incurred by said county by issuing warrants on the general fund for the current running expenses, to the amount of $81,064.25, between the 24th of February, 1890, and the 8th of December, 1891,-which resolution of the board is set out in full in said affidavit. Said affidavit further shows that notice of the election was given as provided by law, and an election was duly had, whereat, by more than three-fifths of the votes cast, the attempted incurring of said indebtedness by said county, as aforesaid, was ratified; and that respondent's warrants were among the number validated at said election that they thereby became valid claims against the county; that the same had been presented to the appellant, as treasurer, and payment thereof demanded; that, although appellant, at the time of such presentation and demand, had, and at all times has had, as treasurer, sufficient funds to pay the same, applicable to such payment, appellant neglects and refuses to cause the same to be paid. An alternative writ issued as prayed for. For a return, appellant admitted all of the allegations contained in the affidavit herein referred to, except that respondent's warrants were validated; and affirmatively set up as a reason for not paying said warrants: (1) That his predecessor had been enjoined, at the suit of one S. T. Packwood, from paying certain warrants issued by said county, among which respondent's warrants were included; (2) that the warrants were invalid at the time of their issuance, and were not validated at said election, for the reason that the dates between which the warrants sought to be validated were issued were not set forth in the ballots voted at said election; (3) that said warrants were not validated at said election, for the reason that the resolution of the board of commissioners providing for the election required that the polls should be kept open from 9 a. m. until 7 p. m., while the notice of election as published provided that the polls should be kept open from 9 a. m. until 6 p. m. (appellant admitted in his return, however, that the polls at said election were actually kept open until 7 p. m.); (4) that, even if respondent is entitled to have said warrants paid, he is entitled only to the face of the warrants, and not to interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum from the several dates of presentation until paid. The court below sustained respondent's demurrer to said return, and, appellant refusing to plead further, the writ was made peremptory; and from said order and judgment this appeal is taken.

Proceeding to examine the questions involved, in the order in which they are raised in the return, we will first consider the effect of the order enjoining appellant's predecessor from paying these warrants. It is incorporated in full in the return, and appears to have been granted for the reason that the indebtedness for which the warrants were issued had been attempted to be incurred at a time when the debt of the county had reached the 1 1/2 per cent. limit, and without the assent...