The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-04-08
STATE SUPREME COURT.
Whatcom Bond Case Decided in Favor
of the City-Two King County Gases.

Whatcom Bond Case Decided in Favor
of the City-Two King County Cases.
OLYMPIA, April 7.-[Special. 1.-The su-
preme court today decided the city bond
case of De Mattos VS.. New Whatcom ct al.
The plaintiff in this case sought to enjoin
the issuance of bonds voted by the city of
New Whatcom to fund the Indebtedness
of the old cities of Whatcom and New
Whatcom outstanding at the time of the
consolidation on February 1, 1891, which
in the case of Whatcom amounted to
$27, 900 in excess of the lawful TX per cent.
limit A demurrer to the complaint was
sustained in the lower court. The supreme
court holds:
That the new municipality is liable for the
legal Indebtedness of the TWO old cities existing
at the date of consolidation, and that the law Is
valid which provides that in such cases the in
deDtedness of each of the old corporations is to
be payable only out Of the taxes collected from
property which the limits of such old city en-
braced. The court decides, however, that the
action OF the new city council in submitting the
question of validating the excess indebted
ness of Old Whatcom TO q vote of the residents
of that part of the new city was Of no force.
1t also decides that the new city had
authority to issue bonds to fund the debts as
sumed by it up to IL per cent OF the taxable
property within its limits without any popular
vote, while the excess indebtedness of the old
city of Whatcom was not validated by the fund
ing vote, as the act Of March z, 1891, giving a
city having corporate existence on that day
authority to validate the unauthorized excess OF
indebtedness, does not apply to the old city of
Whatcom, it having ceased to exist prior to that
day. The court therefore holds that the war
rants representing the excess indebtedness OF
Old Whatcom, $27 600, are void. The cause Is
remanded with instructions to overrule tho de-
murrer az to the excess indebtedness and to sus-
tain it as to the remainder.
The case of Francioli, respondent, VS..
Brue, appellant, from Snohomish county,
was affirmed, the court holding that an
objection that a complaint does not state
facts sufficient to constitute cause of ac-
tion cannot be raised for the first time
after the briefs have been filed.
The judgment in the King county di-
vorce suit of Sophie j. Scotland, respond
ent, VS.. Jacob Scotland, appellant, giving
the plaintiff decree, was affirmed, Judge
Hoyt dissenting.
The court reversed the judgment in the
case of Johnson, appellant, VS.. Gregory &
Co., respondents, from King county. The
action was brought to set aside default
Judgment and execution sale Hereunder
for the reason that the sheriff's return of
service was false. The court decides that
the return may be assailed IN proceeding
to set aside the judgment.
The Judgment in the suit of Nickerson
VS.. Johnson ct al, from Jefferson county,
to set aside conveyances from the plaintiff
TO defendant on the ground of undue infiu-
ence, was modified so as to uphold a con-
veyance of forty acres, but to declare void
one of eighty acres.