The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-11-16

orYwsss. Nov. :6-F Especial. THE So
prruss cosvs today Lied opinions In tie
fosIowI8g eases:
state sx rel. School I1issrte. No. q
E1chouish Eoansy, ss. State Auditor
This t. en- applEesssGn 20 c0rnres the an
ait0r 90 drAs q warrant against the per-
nsansns school fnad for SSs 900 tn favor ~
TsEsaaf To pay f9F purchase Of school, dis
ffsrt bonds. Ii - eonceee9 tas bon1s we're
regularly 4ssasd and purchased BY the
sssta IaEd com mission. IL - erncece4
that the cole reason wny tire auditor re-
fassa 20 iss1s the warrant was because he
was in doubt IS 20 whsther q sehOol dis
fTics 10 municipal corporation within
the meAaing OF the Constitution. The
e0art considers the appafent intent In ces-
lgnasIng national. state. county or munse-
invest the school fund vas 20 draw q dis
slnesisn between private and public seeuFi-
ties. and only 70 prchinss inysstnsnt in
private securities.
The court said: "As question Of pub
&c policy there seems TO be no good reason
Why there should be any prohibition from
inyssting any part Of this fund In school
district bonds. While it 10 not for us 10
declare the policy Of the state. the fact
that they are admittedly asuslIy::regarded
ss dessrs6ls securities. and thai il you'd
seem 90 be an appropriate investment, Is
OF some value IN arriving ~ the intsnt Of
the sseurtiy. Upon the whole. we DO not
think there was any inten ton TO exclude
school district bonds from the provisions
eenld not be q Ssl1-founded distinction 10
hold thai In this particular instanes school
distFsets are not municipal corporations.
Tbe writ must issue"
Judge HORT disssnts, and thinks thers
can lie but one construction Of the wOrsfs
municipal bonds. {" In the constitution,
aaa thai construction uouid exclude
school dsstfics bonds.
Tacoma Railway 4 Motor Com pany vs..
deoTxs A. Jennings. An &C tion was
brought By jennings for damages against
me railway company. and he secured
Judgment In Ehe lower court. The re-
spondeas WAS an employs OF the COM
rany. And While ia its service was injured.
The court states that At the time he was
ialarsi be wAs directed by no superior,
bat simply did not notice what be as do.
ms. and Vas. therefore, guilty Of gross
negligence. ard il would be inequitabse 10
Bed ais employers responsible fer his own
negligent acts. The judgment vas re-
Safssd and the caused remAndsd xstA in
stEacsioas 10 grant . non-sast.
Fagst sound & Chxhsiis Railroad Com
panY "a Louis 7. oasseits; Puget Sound
thsballs Railroad Company vs. w 3
Eswsll-FFom Thnrstoni judgment re-
yefsed.
Judges Stiles and Andsrs have entered
a1sseuting opinion ia case OF Columbia Il
Puget Sound Rziirond Cofapanv ". CITY
et Seattle. tn which 10 Is held that the
poHsf 10 pfoject and sxtsnd streets over
tide lands granted by section y. art
March "A, $50, 10 cities Of the first class
vas intended 20 have precisely the same
Appsleataon % private persons a. the Sec
ii0t T. wbiCA authorised theta to las ouk
opsn ard sxtsad streets, alleys. etc, ana
seetaoa shteh author xed theni 20 change
grades OF streets. Tasy can do none az
taSse things slshoat compensation TO the
o~nsr of property taken or damaSed. aad
as the FiEat IT presumption }naTing 10 a
tide lAad lmproveF Il csftsiniy property
be shoata hs equally protected.
though 4 SEayex va Cay OF Spokane
Judgment ef lewer Gears affirmed.
J. ]. Long vs. e. A. Blll.ngs-From
dharstonS Judgment affirmed
FEst National Bank of Aberdeen VI.
janus Andrews ci a. Judgment reversed.