The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-04-24
LIABILITY ron C1rr DEBTS.


Jodgo Jaeobs On the Imnunity Of An
nexeA Districts.
An opinion was recently asked Of Corporation
Counsel Jacobs - - whether the residents Of
ANNEXED territory would Be liable for debts in
CURED By Seattle prior 70 annexation The Ne
quest vas presented In the shape Of . communi-
cation to the city council from some residents
Of the district proposed to b annexed at the
election Of May 4
Judgs Jacobs rendered the following opinion,
which embaiies the questions asked:
The communication or petition of Judge
William D. Wood, c. p. Stone and Homer Hill
has been referred to me for IN opinion
"fint-As 10 the validity of the provisions of
sections . and 10. chapter !, Of the Law OF March
n, 1880
.SecOnd-As to the requisite mode Of carrying
this Law into execution
Il win briefly answer the inst question and
dikmiss the second with the remark, ssunhcient
unso the day il the evil thereof or, q Yankee
might put ii, we ought not to worry ourselves
IN climbing hills before we get 70 them
st win be perceived by the careful reader Of
this act Of March ~, 1880, that iss provisions
are general and they apply to towns and cities
o. I'll ciasses, unless expressly limited to par
dcuiR class. Two modes are prescribed for the
enlargement Of the boundaries of q town or
city. The frst IL called annexation The Sec
ond Is called consolidation Annexation &C.
unineoYpo-ased territory. Consolidation oc-
cun when two municipalities become one The
mode Of procedure il radically different in the
two czses, but when contaminated the law of
liability for the debts of each existing at the
time Of the annexation or consolidation is the
same Each must pay it, own preexisting
debts In the case Of . consolidation, what
shall become OF the property Of the pre-existing
municipalities, whether it be % d and the pro-
ccedS applied TO the PAYMENT of the
debts of each or whether il becomes by
the set of consolidation the property Of
the new municipality, are questions
the satisfactory solution of which may
require more specific legislation than We now
have. but these questions do not concern US,
for ours Il . case of annexation. The law cor
rectly recited In the communication addressed
to you In the caee Of annexation 10 - follows.
Provided. that no property within such terri
tory % annexed shall ever Be taxed to pay any
portion Of any indebtedness OF such corporation
contracted prior 70 or existing at the date of
such annexation. Sec. 8. chap /, act of March
"a, 1850
in case Of Consolidation: Provided, that no
property within either Of the former corpora-
lions 20 consolidated shall eve. Be FAXED to pay
any portion of any Indebtedness of either of the
other Of such corporations contracted prior to or
existing at the date Of such consolidation
Sec. 10, chap l., act Of March n, lse0
1.-THE statutory rule thus plainly prescribed Is
just and equitable and know of no objections 70
its constitutional validity. might add it ID the
usual ruls prescribed In similar cases. When
the proper time comes, means or modes win be
found 70 carry this rule Of equitable liability
into execution. There need be no fears, for
these statutory provisions fix the rights of
al, and all ordinances or attempted ordinances
in conflict with them viii simply be null and
void