Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1895-10-25
The Spe cial Warrant Decision

corded by the Supreme Court, Mon
day, in the case OF the City OF Spo-
kane ". Stevens It al. The action
was brought to foreclose a lien ere
ated 10y an assessment for street grad
ing.
The property owners objected to the
complaint, by way OF demurrer, on
the ground that there was want OF
facts and that the action was not
commenced within the time limited 10y
law. They further allege that
statute OF the State provides that the
limitation Of action shall apply to the
State and all municipal corporations,
the same as against any person.
While there are numerous specific
statutes OF limitations regarding GER
tain kinds OF actions, as six years
upon written instruments, three years
upon common book accounts, etc, no
specific statute is provided in regard
to an assessment lien.
Sec. l20, vol. > Hills Code, provides
| that " an action for relief not hPrcinbc-
fore proriticd shall BE- commenced wHhM
tWO years after the cause Of action shall
hare accrued"
In the above action the court holds
that the two year statute applies.
Under all street assessments in this
city the contractors expressly agreed
to look to the fund created by the as
sessment and the consequent lien, for
their pay, and the warrants are all
drawn upon such special funds.
The court holds that in any action
brought to enforce such assessment
lien, where the lien is of two or more
years standing, the defendant can sue
cessfully plead the statute OF limita.
tons Of two years.
This has not the effect OF repudiat-
ing the warrants, but it makes it so
that il the property owners thus sit
uated do but avail themselves OF the
plea Of the statute of limitations, no
fund can ever be provided out of
which to pay off the warrants thus is
sued upon these special funds. In
this way the warrants are rendered
practically worthless.
In the case OF Thomas & Co. vs. the
City OF Olympia, brought about four
months ago, in an action to compel
the city to issue general fund war
rant in lieu Of q street grade warrant,
because of the failure of the city to
collect these street assessments, our
Supreme court decided that the city is
not holding upon these grade war {
rants, but that the only source from
which they can be paid is from the re-
spective funds. Such funds can hard
ly now be expected to ever be raised I
by legal proceedings. The warrant it.
self is unaffected, but the fund, or an
ticipsted fund, surely is.
1t is with these warrant holders as
it is with a creditor who gives his !
debtor so much time that the debtor
can interpose the defense of the stat.
ute OF limitations when he is sued by
the creditor to recover the debt. 1t
was at all times the privilege of the
warrant holder to demand of the city
that the assessment be collected, 80
his warrant might be paid, and if,
after such demand, the city neglect
ed or failed to collect such assess.
ments and liens, mandamus would lie
to compel it to do so. These rights,
however, the warrant holders did not
enforce, and now the court holds that
they have waited too long In effect
it wipes out all the Indebtedness here.
tofore existing against property owners =
by reason of street improvements, }
where the money has been due for two
years or more.
1t is not the fault of the owner of u
the property against which the lien
stood, and under the case OF Thomas
& Co. VS.. The City of Olympia, the
city is not liable under any condition
of facts, so the only party who is to
blame is the holder of the securities
themselves, and this under the law,
for the law under which these i'm
provements were made and warrants
issued become 4 part of the contract
and the holders were bound to know
this. Hence they have only them
selves to blame.
THE Olympian suggests the organ e