Case ID: wash_7/html/0190-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Stiles, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[ No. 1064.
    Decided October 14, 1893.]
    F. S. Lewis, Appellant, v. The City of Port Angeles, Respondent.
    
    MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — PURCHASE 0E ELECTRIC LIGHTING PLANT —RECITALS IN ORDINANCE — SURPLUSAGE.
    The recital in an ordinance adopting a system of electric lighting for a city that it was passed in pursuance of the act of March 26, 1890, as amended by the act of March 9, 1891, is mere surplusage, and the fact that the ordinance was passed in pursuance of the act of February 10, 1893, which was a reenactment of said former acts with an immaterial amendment, is not ground for enjoining the issuance of bonds for the purchase of such lighting system.
    
      Appeal from Superior Court, Clallam County.
    
    
      W. R. Gay, for appellant.
    
      George C. Hatch, for respondent.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Stiles, J.

The only objection made to the issuance of the proposed bonds being that the ordinance adopting the system of electric lighting for the respondent city recited that it was passed in pursuance of the act of March 26, 1890 (Laws, p. 520), as amended by the act of March 9, 1891 (Laws, p. 826), when in fact, if passed at all, it must have been passed in pursuance of the act of February 10, 1893 (Laws, p. 12), the judgment is affirmed.

The recital in the ordinance was surplusage, and the act of 1893, was, under the decision in Seymour v. Tacoma, 6 Wash. 427 (33 Pac. Rep. 1059), a mere reenactment of the former acts, with an immaterial amendment covering the purchase of the existing light or water plants.

Dunbar, C. J., and Hoyt, Anders and Scott, JJ., concur.