The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-07-29

ter they were vested with no arbitrary
or even discretionary power. They were
commanded by the law TO ascertain from
the returns whether a Sufficient numpeF
OF votes had been cast 70 authorize the
removal Of the county seat, and not sin
ply 10 declare that the required number
had been cast.
The result of the election not having
been ascertained. the pretended canvass
and entertainment by the board was NJ.
merely irregular but absolutely void, &a'i
constituted no foundation or authority
whatever for the order and declaration
entered upon the records. So far as the
the effect Of the election is neither great
er nor less than il no election whatever
had been held upon the proposition. and
IL follows. for aught appears TO the con
trary. that the city Of Snohomish is still
the county seat of Snohonish county.
And that being so, the question IS, can
county officer and a taxpayer maintain
an action to enjoin its removal and pre-
vent the consequent Illegal expenditure Of
public money That he may do so was
determined by this court In Hickey vs..
Williams supra In Champion VS. IA
brisiie. iol e. s.. 20i, the court said:
''Of the right of resident taxpayers 10
invoke the interposition OF court OF
equity TO prevent an Illegal disposition nf
the moneys of the county or the Illegal
creation of a debt which they in COM
mon with other property holders OF
county NAV otherwise be compelled 20
pay. there is at this day no serious ques-
ton. The right has been recognized by
the state courts in numerous cases: AMI
from the nature of the powers exercised
by municipal corporations. the great dan
ger of their abuse and the necessity or
prompt action to prevent irremeciable m
juries, IL would seem eminently proper ior
courts of equity to interfere upon the APP
plicaton of the taxpayers OF county 10
prevent tire contamination OF wrong,
when the officers OF those corporations
assume in excess of their powers, 10
create burdens upon property holders.
Upon the authority of these cases and
many others which might be cited, as well
as upon considerations of right ana ins-
tice we conclude that the court below
properly interfered TO prevent the con
summation of wrong when would
otherwise have resulted from the unwar-
ranted and illegal acts of the majority IF
the board of county commissioners. More
over, ii must be conceded that there Is
much force in the suggestion or counsel
for respondent that Sec. 6. OF Art. ~, OF
the state constitution. conferred Jurisdic-
ton upon the superior court to hear ana
determine this action. 1t Is there pro-
vided that 1.-THE superior court shall have
original Jurisdiction of such
special cases and proceedings as are
not otherwise provided for" This pro-
vision OF the constitution was not pressed
upon the attention of this court, or pass
ed. upon. in either of the county seat
cases above mentioned. The language
there used is certainly very broad ana
comprehensive and might we'll be said to
apply to cases of this character. as they
are mot otherwise provided for and. II
contemplated at all, fall within the pur-
view of this provision. At all events. IL
is manifest that IL was not the intention
OF the trainers of this section to ex-
clude any sort or manner of causes from
the jurisdiction of the superior court.
AS what we have already said disposes
of this case, IL becomes unnecessary to
enter upon a discussion of other points
made in the briefs of the learned counsel
for the respective parties. The Judgment
is affirmed.
ANDERS. ].
We concur: HOYT, c. ].
SCOTT J.