Title: State Ex Rel. Carroll v. Bastian

State: washington

Issuer: Washington Supreme Court

Document:

66 Wn.2d 546 (1965) 403 P.2d 896 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of Charles O. Carroll, Respondent, v. FRANK J. BASTIAN et al., Appellants.[*] No. 37735. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two. July 1, 1965. Hullin, Ehrlichman, Carroll & Roberts, for appellant Hanscom. Charles O. Carroll, James E. Kennedy, and William L. Paul, Jr., for respondent. HUNTER, J. This is an appeal from a judgment in a quo warranto proceeding instituted in the name of the state *547 by the prosecuting attorney of King County, under authority of RCW 7.56, against the officials of the Town of East Redmond, a purported municipal corporation of the fourth class. The information alleged that the town was illegally incorporated, and that the officials were acting unlawfully in the exercise of corporate powers and should be ousted from their offices. The trial court found that the Town of East Redmond was illegally incorporated; that the incorporation was null and void; that the officials, therefore, held no offices in the Town of East Redmond, and entered judgment ousting them from their respective offices. This appeal followed. No error is assigned to the trial court's findings of fact, which therefore become verities in this case. It is the legal conclusions of the trial court, from the court's findings, to which the assignments of error are taken. The trial court concluded that though numerous irregularities occurred in the incorporation proceedings, the fatal errors were the violations of statutory requirements that: (1) a municipal corporation of the fourth class shall not constitute an area of more than one square mile (Laws of 1889-1890, ch. 7, § 15), and (2) a municipal corporation of the fourth class shall have a minimum population of 300 within the area incorporated (RCW 35.02.010). The unchallenged findings state: From the foregoing findings it is manifestly clear that the statutory requirements in effect at the time of the purported incorporation of the Town of East Redmond, and which must necessarily have been fulfilled to permit its valid incorporation, were not met. *548 The appellants argue, however, that the above defects were cured by a 1961 enactment of the legislature, Laws of 1961, Ex. Ses., ch. 16, § 1, which states: [1] We find this enactment insufficient to validate the defective proceedings. It relates only to the area requirements for incorporation of a fourth-class municipality, and expressly assumes that the incorporation proceedings were otherwise valid. The incorporation proceedings were otherwise invalid by reason of the deficiency in density requirements, viz, population of at least 300 persons per square mile. [2] The appellants contend that the state's action is barred by laches by reason of the 7 1/2 year delay in the institution of this quo warranto proceeding. We disagree. RCW 7.56, supra, provides for the institution of a quo warranto proceeding by the state through the prosecuting attorney, either at the direction of the superior court or on the prosecuting attorney's own motion. The enactment contemplates a judgment invalidating an operating and functioning municipality and provides the procedure for the dissolution of such a corporation by the appointment of a receiver. Moreover, RCW 4.16.160 expressly provides: *549 The authorities appellants cite in support of their contention are from other jurisdictions and are not apposite in view of the statutes cited, supra, which are controlling. [3] The appellants contend that a judgment dismissing a writ of prohibition brought by one Konstantine Dincov in 1956 against the King County Board of Commissioners in cause No. 497788 is res judicata as to the instant proceeding. We disagree. Even assuming that the other requisites for application of the doctrine were met, appellants have not established the concurrence of identity of persons and parties. Symington v. Hudson, 40 Wn.2d 331, 243 P.2d 484 (1952); Burke Motor Co. v. Lillie, 39 Wn.2d 918, 239 P.2d 854 (1952); 2 Orland, Wash. Prac. § 379, 387, 388 (2d ed. 1965). Appellants also contend that cause No. 150237, instituted in 1958, is res judicata. We find the record insufficiently clear to sustain this contention. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ROSELLINI, C.J., FINLEY, WEAVER, and HAMILTON, JJ., concur. [*] Reported in 403 P.2d 896.