title:
H L Yesler, D T Denny, Hillory Butler, W H Pumphrey, D Kellogg, P H Lewis, Amos Brown, Dexter Horton, E M Smithers, G O Haller, and George Kinnear, Plaintiffs and Appellants, vs City of Seattle, Harry White, Mayor of said City, Robert Calligan, D A McKenzie, J H Wallingford, H F Phillips, George W Hall, Frank A Twitchell, Alonzo Hull, Leander Miller and C W Ferris, Defendants and Respondents, Respondents Brief
title:
87
creator:
City of Seattle
creator:
Harry White
creator:
Robert Calligan
creator:
D. A. McKenzie
creator:
J. H. Wallingford
creator:
H. F. Phillips
creator:
George W Hall
creator:
Frank A. Twitchell
creator:
Alonzo Hull
creator:
Leander Miller
creator:
C. W. Ferris
contributor:
Thomas R. Shepard
date:
1890-09
publisher:
Washington State Supreme Court
type:
Civil
subject:
Local Government Law
language:
eng
format:
application/pdf
description:
Prior History: Appeal from Superior Court, King County.The facts are fully stated in the opinion.Municipal Corporations – Water Works and Sewers – Bonds – Date of Issue – Elections – Ordinances – Although the charter of the city of Seattle (Laws Wash. 1886, p.224) granting said city power to erect and maintain waterworks, provided that no such works should be erected “until a majority of the voters of the city, at a general election of the city, shall vote upon the same,” which clause is unrepealed by any later law, yet by the acts of February 26, and March 26, 1899 (Laws 1889-90, pp.225, 520), authorizing cities to extend their indebtedness and construct, purchase and maintain water works with the proceeds of long time bonds, a new power is conferred upon said city, and the question of issuing bonds for such improvements may be submitted at a special election held for that purpose.The act of March 26, 1890, entitled “An act authorizing cities and towns to construct internal improvements, and to issue bonds therefor, and declaring an emergency,” under which the legislature empowers cities to construct and maintain water, light and sewerage systems, is not invalid on the ground that the subject of the act is not expressed in the title, as required by art. 2, § 19 of the constitution.The act of March 26, 1890, authorizing the city council or board of trustees of any city or town to provide by ordinance for submitting to vote of the people plans for “either or both such water works, or systems of sewerage, or plant or works for lighting purposes,” is a general law applicable to all incorporated cities and towns, and clearly authorizes ordinances on tis subject to be either single, double or triple; and accordingly suspends the restrictive clause in § 78 of the charter of the city of Seattle, that “no ordinance shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in the title.”
description:
The record of an ordinance was made by the city clerk from a correctly printed copy, the original having been lost. Subsequently the city attorney undertook to prepare a substitute for the original, but by mistake he worded it differently in some particulars. This substituted copy was signed by the mayor and clerk, and placed on file in the latter’s office. Afterwards an assistant clerk, without authority form any one, erased and interlined the recorded ordinance to make it conform to the substituted copy. Held, that showing these facts was not the impeachment of a record, and that the ordinance, as originally recorded by the clerk, before the erasures and interlineations were made, was the true ordinance.Where an ordinance provides that “if three-fifths of the voters of said city of Seattle shall at said election vote in favor or authorizing,” etc., it does not require, in order to carry the proposition, that three-fifths of all those who may be entitled to a vote, should vote in favor thereof, but only a three-fifths majority of those actually voting.Where the statute provided that, if the voters of a city duly assented thereto, the city might issue bonds to cover the cost of water, sewer and light systems, the bonds to run for not more than twenty years, with interest at not less than six per cent. per annum, principal and interest to be payable at such place as may be designated, and an ordinance of the city of Seattle submitting such a proposition to the voters thereof, provided that the bonds should be sold at par, bear five percent. Interest, and be payable at the office of the city treasurer, and the proposition was assented to by the voters of the said city in that form, the city council of said city may subsequently, in the absence of fraud, without again submitting the proposition to the people, provide by another ordinance that the bonds shall be sold at a discount, bear a greater rate of interest, provided the same does not exceed six per cent., and be made payable at a different place from that fixed in the original ordinance.Where the statute requires that such bonds “shall bear the date of their issue,” it is not a violation thereof for the bonds to be prepared and dated July 1st, 1890, and not negotiated until several months thereafter.Where a statute required bonds to be signed by the mayor of the city, the person holding that office when the occasion arrived for executing them would be the proper party to affix the official signature of the mayor, though the bonds bore date prior to his entry into office.
relation:
Yesler v. Seattle, 1 Wash. 308 (1890)
relation:
25 P. 1014
rights:
These materials are public records. Please see Washington State Court Rules: General Rules 31 for details https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_31_00_00.pdf