The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-08-26
THECITY THE WINNER
SUPREME COURT DECIDES TACOMA
WATER DEAL APPEAL
Claim. of Fraud Sustained. and Dis
tfneffon 70 Be Drawn Between
Public and Private Corporations
The wheat Fleet Coming to the
Souna-sueressful Civil Service
Candidate sues the City.

Special Dispatch 10 the Post-InteIiigencer-
OLYMPIA. Aug. z5.-The supreme court
today rendered decision in favor OF the
city in the case % the city OF Tacoma,
respondent wz. Tacoma Light ard Water
Co. appellant. The appellant made a Pc
titIon for rehearing. which was denied
Tire case vas tried IN the superior court
at Tacoma IN December. 1885. and WAS
an action 10 recover damages for deceit
and fraudulent Interpretations BIZ the
Electric Light ard Water Company IN
the sale OF its light and water plant 70
the city Of Tacoma IL was charged by
the city that the officers OF the light and
water company represented that there
was an average daily flow u le.09vag
gallons OF water from Thomas and Pat
tersou springs. which could Be used for
a gravity system OF water supply for the
city. when in fact the supply was less
than 250a,00o gallons; also that misTepre-
scntatfon was made Of the amount OF pipe
then laid also representation was
made a. 70 the eight acres OF land site
fer a water station, which was valued at
about 80 0co; that the value Of the plant
was misreprcsented 70 the extent Of 81
100, that the light and water company,
for the purpose Of inducing the sale 10 the
city. corrupted the president OF the city
council and other members of the city
government. The jury ia the superior
court returned verdict against the light
and water company for $500.
The case was taken on appeal to the
supreme court. and on January an
opinion was filed. in which three members
OF the court united on reversing the case.
This opinion IS found in A. Pacific. a5s. n
petition for rehearing was filed there
after rehearing granted and the case
re-argued. The court now affirms the
Judgment of the superior court, which
civ. fhsz fsfgx ftaHo
against the light and water company.
The principal contention before the SUI
preme court ON the part Of appellant was
that the evidence was insufficient 10 sus-
tain the verdict. The opinion OF the
court reviews at very considerable length
the principles controlling in actions for
damages for fraudulent misrepresentation
OF property sold. and as TO the duty OF
examination OF the property by the pur-
chaser, and observes:
When fraud is alleged as an induce
ment to the execution OF the contract,
among the circumstances always peril
nent TO the inquiry IS the status OF the
respective parties, when in intelligence,
skin and capacity they are upon an equal
footing, whether the more wary has over
reached the unWary. Municipal corpora
tons are not instituted for general bust
ness purposes They are local govern
menEs chiefly instituted for police protec-
ton, the conservation of order and the
Their entry into the field OF trade is very
limited and incidental TO their other pur-
poses. They are not constituted Tor
money making. and thus the legislative
powers ordinarily exercised by the city
council are not necessarily exercised by
trained and experienced business men.
The city council is not constituted for the
same purpose as the board Of directors
of a private business corporation, which
Is created solely for the purpose OF max
ing money and has special training for
the one object, hence in the consideration
of questions of fraud and misrepresenta-
ton arising upon a contract for the sale of
property by a private corporation to a
municipal corporation. IL is a fact prop
erly for the consideration of the jury that
the less expert business capacity, skill
and experience may be with the munich
pal corporation"
The opinion reviews the rule in the ap-
peilate court granting new trials for in
suificiency Of the evidence TO sustain the
verdict. and. after reviewing many au-
thorties. concludes:
Where the material facts Of the case
are supported by competent evidence, al
though Il may be very conflicting and the
preponderance may appear 20 be the other
way. court for the review Of errors on
appeal cannot disturb the verdict
The opinion was written by Judge
Reavis and signed by two associate
Judges