Case ID: wash_8/html/0457-01.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. 1158.
    Decided March 20, 1894.]
    A. J. Wallace, Appellant, v. Skagit County, Respondent.
    
    COUNTIES — CONSTRUCTION OP DITCH — NECESSITY POR TAKING BOND PROM CONTRACTOR.
    The construction of a local ditch is not such a county improvement as to require the county commissioners to take a bond from the contractor, under Gen. Stat., §2415, for the protection of laborers.
    
      Appeal from Superior Court, Skagit County.
    
    
      Frank Quinby, and Fermer Pushor, for appellant.
    
      TYells de Joiner, for respondent.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Stiles, J.

— Appellant is seeking to hold the county of Skagit responsible for the default of a contractor in not paying the wages of his laborers, the commissioners not having taken a bond as required by Gen. Stat., §2415. The work contracted for was a local ditch, under Gen. Stat., title 21, ch. 1. We agree entirely with the court below that the construction, of ditches under these laws is not a county improvement, but a purely local one, in which all expenses are payable by the district benefited, and the commissioners act as statutory agents of the improvers. Board, etc., v. Fullen, 111 Ind. 410 (12 N. E. 298); Little v. Board, 34 N. E. 499 (Ind.); Dashner v. Mills Co., 55 N. W. 468 (Iowa).

The public is not interested in the matter, and the statute with regard to bonds has no application to such cases. Judgment affirmed.

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