The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-01-16
TEES OF ATTORNEYS.
frpreme Court Renders an I'M
portant Decision.
easE ON OLD GRADE WARRANTS.
=. wuey's EnployDest BY Mayer
usrsy white to Defend HIS Refusal
20 siga Funding BonAs-

- supreme court has just handed
"A a decision in the case OF John
Ts:ev and others against the city Of Se-
80 which IL OF great interest to lawyers
~ 70 municipal authorities. In March.
- the city council passed an ordinance
s.erring certain street grade warrants
- inseress~bearing funds. the intention
1.ine 10 reduce the rate of interest The
Aerf however. was to saddle the city
eith liability for the amount. Mayor
Harry White refused to sign the warrants
- the ground that the city was not liable
ID that an Indebtedness could not be H.
uryed without q popular vote.
The city council passed the ordinance
eysr the veto OF the mayor by . unani-
ncas vote The bonds were Autographed
: due time. W. 7. Chalk being fhe holder
r some OF the warrants, surrendered his
ssrrants and demanded bonds in lieu
hereof. The bonds were signed by G. w.
Ferris as comptroller and Willis Amcs a.
treasurer, but when presented TO Mayor
White he refused 70 sign them. and Chalk
sued out an alternative writ of mandamus
Is compel their execution. The writ was
eryvsd upon Mayor White and by him
tsnded 10 Corporation Counsel Jacobs.
Nth the request that he appear and de-
had the action. This the corporation
counsel refused to do. for the reason that
J % his opinion Mayor White was wrong in
wfusing TO sign the bonds.
Mayor White. with the consent Of Cor
pofaton Counsel Jacobs, employed the
ffm Of Wiley. Scott d Bostwick to defend
ths action. The case was tried before
L. Il. a. u
the mayor. From this decision IN appeal
vs. taken By Chalk to the supreme court,
shere Judge Humes' decision was affirmed
ard the ordinance held void The firm OF
Wiiey. Scott 4 Bostwick presented bill
10 the city for services rendered and for
costs and disbursements necessarily in
enrred in the action. The city refused
payment and an action to recover attor-
neys' fees aud costs was brought, which
vas defended by tho city on the ground
Mat the obligation was not incurred By
ordinance.
Judge Osborn sustained this position OF
the city, and granted non-suit. The SD
preme court now reverses this decision
and holds that Mayor White was not only
right In defending the action but that IL
was his sworn duty TO do 80, and that such
being the case the corporation was Sound
10 pay the reasonable value OF the services
rendered At his request in the defense OF
the action.
The decision in full IL as follows:
Appellants suffered q non-suit in an
action which they brought against the re-
spondent for the services which they rem
dered, as attorneys for the defendant. in
the case of Chalk vs.. White. mayor. etc., 4
Wash, 1856
Their offers OF proof were to the effect
that after the mayor had vetoed the ordi-
nance authorizing the issuance of the
illegal bonds, it Was passed by the unani-
nous vote OF both of the bodies which
Constitute the legislative authority Of the
city. Under the advice of the corporation
counsel that such action was within their
power; and that when he WAS served with
the alternative writ of mandamus requir-
ing him TO sign the bonds. the mayor APP
Piled To the corporation counsel to defend
him in the action. and was refused on the
ground OF the opinion be had given
the council. because he believed his
advice was right. and because hs could
not honorably. 1T that time and under
such circumstances. take the other side.
This refusal and these reasons we're put IN
writing and delivered TO tue mayor and
the council also refused TO permit any of
hts assistants TO act for the defense. The
mayor then canvassed the members of
both houses or the council and found them
unwilling to act favorabIy upon any ordi-
nance which might be proposed looking TO
the employment of special counsel. and
thcreupon took his own course and secured
the successful services of the appel ants
But. Notwithstanding the result of the
case, the auditing powers of the city would
allow no compensation for the services
rendered or return OF money expended,
and hence this suit.
The ruling of the court below on the
motion fer non-suit was based upon the
stringent language of the charter of
abe city and the general rule o. municipal
explorations that where the manner of ex-
ereislns power conferred upon a eorpor-
ate agent Is laid down in terms, his action.
In order 10 be legal, must be taken in strict
conformity to the mode thus prescribed
lArnett VS.. spokane. q Wash. az
1T - evident from the general tenor of
this charter tFreeholders, 1902 that IL
vas the endeayor of its trainers 20 require
authority for every sort of expenditure to
emanste from some legally constituted
source and in a formal and unmisiakabIe
way. in fact. q charter could hardly be
conceived that would be more mandatory
In It's restrictions unon municipal officers.
corporation counsel was included among
the officers OF the city, whose duty it was
among others. TO defend all actions aud
proceedings 90 which the city or any Of
ncsr board or department of the city
shoald be party, or IN which the rights
or interests oi.the city should be involved !,
ard by an ordinance this officer could be
allowed 60 employ one or more ASSISTANTS.
The council would also have authority.
nndey the general powers conferred upon
y. aud with the concurrence of the mayer,
70 employ such special counsel IN particu-
lar cases as il should deem necessary.
nut on THIS subject there was this pro-
sss1oa. No office shall be created, nor
shssi any person be employed ga ang ca
reel1g unless the same is spe-
essily provided or authorized by law or
tbs charter - Nothing could be
imagined that would more completely tie
the hands Of an officer in the matter Of
employing counsel than this provision.
vas the councils manifest duty,
Notwithstanding the hostility 10 the may
@s position, 10 provide him legal assist
aAes, when tue attitude Of the corporation
seaasei MAS made apparent; ea. II could
ees ee controlled IA the matter, and II
seGsG undoubtedly have refused. The
AsS0v VAS then IN thts position: The
s0asstSntsoa, she statute lax and the char
,sf itset forbade him TO sign the bonds or
uc saYshins towards putting them IN cir
ea.aeon. and under the solemnity OF his
eaaciai oash he was bound 10 oeev: bat on
sas etaer hand, she ordinance passed over
80 veto hy unanimous votes. snd the
assFnStsso writ OF mandAmgs from the
SVa5t commanded him to proceed. liz was
aseSt Important ease. involving the city >
nsSaiIY ioF morn than 500 0o which no
SO "a 0ihetss position ought 10 oe re-
S@'sec 10 submit 10 = court without legal
assistance. tie could neither stand .tlis.
aasaaes nor retrcas without peril; and vet
s zoe Charter laid upon h.m the express
~Asy 70 see fNgt Al laws and ordinances