Winston v. City of Spokane

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Citation: 12 Wash. 524,41 P. 888
• Parties: WINSTON v. CITY OF SPOKANE ET AL.
• Decision Date: 22 August 1895

41 P. 888

12 Wash. 524

WINSTON
v.
CITY OF SPOKANE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 22, 1895

Appeal from superior court, Spokane county; James Z. Moore, Judge.

Action by Patrick H. Winston, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against the city of Spokane and others. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

Dunbar and Scott, JJ., dissenting.

James Dawson and Blake & Post, for appellants.

[12 Wash. 525] Winston & Winston, for respondent. [41 P. 889.]

HOYT, C.J.

The foundation of this action was the alleged invalidity of a certain ordinance of the city of Spokane (No. A 583). The superior court found such ordinance to be invalid, and by reason of such finding decreed to plaintiff the relief prayed for in his complaint. The claim that such ordinance was invalid grows out of the fact alleged in the complaint, and admitted in the answer, that the existing indebtedness of the city of Spokane was in excess of the limit authorized by the constitution, and it is not claimed that said ordinance is invalid for any other reason. Such ordinance authorizes the city to enter into a contract with Theis & Barroll for the furnishing of money for the completion of a system of waterworks for the city, and provides for the issuance to them, for the money so advanced, of the obligations of the city payable out of a special fund, to be created by [12 Wash. 526] placing therein 60 per cent. of the receipts derived from such waterworks. And it is claimed on the part of the respondent that the entering into of said contract and the issuance of such obligations of the city is the incurring of an indebtedness, within the meaning of the constitution, and that to do so at the present time is not within the power of the city, for the reason that it is already indebted beyond the constitutional limit. It will be seen that the sole question presented for our consideration is as to whether or not the ordinance in question, the contract to be executed in pursuance thereof, or the obligations provided for in said contract, will create an indebtedness of the city, within the meaning of the provisions of the constitution in relation thereto. Said ordinance and contract, when construed together, provide that the obligations to be issued in pursuance thereof shall be payable only out of the special fund, to be created out of the receipts of the waterworks as above specified, and that the city shall not be in any manner...