The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-01-22
Annual Report of Corporation
Counsel Donworth.
POINTS OF GENERAL INTEREST
Several yexstfoas Problems ses st Rest
"A Gentle Criticism Of the
Hunieipal Court.

ing the year. IL presents the chief points
OF settlement of many vexatious questions.
and. so far as the maintenance Of the city s
interests is concerned, is most satisfac-
tory record. The report will be printed in
fasi, but there are some topics of general
interest which call for special notice. The
case OF Souie vs.. The City of Seattle Was an
action 10 recover principal ana interest on
certain street Improvement warrants. de-
cided in favor Of the plaintiff by the supe-
rIor court. This was reversed BY the
supreme court and the law construed in
favor Of the contention of the city that a
warrant holder must look to the local i'm
provement fund and not to the general
taxation for the amount Of his warrants
tSoule vs.. Seattle. Is Wash. Stat, 3ljl The
principle here decided has far-reachlng
results and prevents the city debt from
being increased by the addition of judg-
nents which, under the opposite view of the
law, would have aggregated several hun
dred thousand dollars. 1T does not follow
from this decision, by any means" says
Mr.. Donworth. that the warrants are TO
be repudiated. Ample means are left TO
the warrant holder TO compel payment.
and By proper effort on the part of the city
tractors or innocent purchasers of their
warrants should suffer loss"
Another case pending at the time Of the
last report was that of the Columbia h
Puge. Sound Railroad Company VS.. the
city, involving the right of the city to i'm
prove South Second street from King
street south. The city obtained fayora-
bic decision IN the lower court and the
company appealed. In May, lsa3. the
judgment below was affirmed. the supreme
court declaring that the law empowering
cities to extend existing streets in direct
line over tide lands coniers rights which
are superior TO those of any private party.
This principle is an important one in de-
termining the rights of the city upon the
water front
Another case pending last year was that
OF Spooner VS.. the city, an action brought
20 quash an assessment for street improve
ments on technical grounds. The court
below decided that the assessment could
not be quashed on certiorari where the
party has a plain remedy at law. The su-
preme court affirmed this judgment, hold
ing that assessments Hnder the charter Of
1855 which are TO be enforced by action
In court in the name Of the city cannot be
quashed by proceedings of this character
instituted by the property owner.
The case of the City VS.. The Columbia n
Puget Sound Railroad Company and the
Northern Pacific and Puget Sound Shore
railroad. commonly known as the Rams
Horn case, was also pending in the SUI
preme court at the date of The last report.
Prior to Mr.. onworths election decision
All 10. eitv al haan J.
the superior court, and the former city
council had employed aud paid special
counsel TO prosecute an appeal in behalf of
the city. The case was heard in the su-
preme court in May last and a decision
rendered sustaining the companies in
every point. This decision a.firms the
validity OF the so-called Rams Horn
right-oi-way and compeis the city to recog-
nize IL as vested right OF property be-
longing 10 the companies. 'sThe result OF
this litigation" he adds SIS source OF re-
greet 10 those who had looked upon Rail-
road avenue rs the proper location for all
railroads passing along the water front,
but the city is bound to accept it in good
faith; and until the rights of the compa-
MES are taken away by due condemnation
proceedings, including the payment OF
compensation, the Rams Horn must be
regarded as a permanency so far as the
city is concerned" The rights of private
individuals over whose property the
right-ol-way extends are. of course. not
concluded by the judgment in the case
brought by the city.
Several difficult questions have arisen
regarding proceedings for the sale of real
estate Tor city taxes and redemptions there
from. The provisions of the freeholders'
charter adopting. with certain restrictions,
the provisions of the state law, are unfor-
tunately less clear than they should have
been, ard different constructions have
been pat upon them. The question whether
the requirements of the charter relating to
the giving of notice By holders OF tar Ger.
titlcates prior to applying for deeds are
still in force was contested by the nlaiutiff
in tie case .of Ford vs.. the city treasurer.
The SUPERIOR court decided in this cass
that notice must be given. The case was
appealed to the supreme court and wa.
receatiy argued there, but no decision Ia,
been announced.
Another question relating 70 the same
matter arose IN the case of Hunt vs.. the
City Treasurer. The plaintiff there con-
tended that the period of redemption for
property sold IN the year Is9i for civ
taxes Of the wear lss0 is two years Instead
OF one as siate~! by the then city treasurer
IN his certificates OF that year. The su-
peFior cour; decided in favor Of the two
years period, nat the case has not vet been
brought TO a final determination.
Another important question determined
during ihe year VAS thai of the priority
between al assessment fer street improve
meni ard mortgage on the premises as
sessed. where the mortgage Is given and
recorded prior 20 the improvement on the
sigeet. This question arose in the case of
Pacific States Ba ldine COMPANY Va. stet.
son. In which The city was made q partv
defendant. The decision of the superior
court sss hrst in favor OF the priority Of
the mortgage. ont on re-hearng. a al Ter
eut conclusion VAS reached and the assess
meat ot the city held ~ be prior Ia All
cases.
4he hope IS held on, ~ M Donxorth
that lie hrug settlement may ~. followed
~ satisfactory aErsn cement vita Gala
her. lie says:
'on August II su action vas bsrun
against Joseph Z GalIaher, late clerk of
TIE municipal court, and Joan Collins and
t. IL. smith. A. sureties. 10 recover S.; -
tae balance Shown By the books 10 have
pFe@ Fect we'd ny A-. Gal aher In excess Of
'he amount paid over av him. Fhis ae-
t9ea = BeS ~ issue. and | bore 10 hsve
the sane tsses before the expiration If ms
teE1 he defendant denies having re
oelFsd Sny m0aeys in excess OF the snras
t4Fae3 over
L.