The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-12-03
M COURT OPINION.
,x THAT MEANS MUCH TO ..
W.. WATERWAY co.
A.at and Plaintiff Appealed
.sestions Of Former Overruled
~er Court Instructed To Give
s~~enf for the Plaintiff.

lssessiou OF the supreme court IN the
80 ,be Mississippi Valley Trust Co..
< ~. s~attIe e. Lake Washington Wafer
ra va W. y. Hofius. brief report
<beh has already appeared In
observation-disclosures contains several In
~ points. The opinion WAS rendered
. jusxce Dunbar. Chief justice Scott
..Iuaiess Gordon and Anders concur
q, stating the history % the case ard
Circumstance leading UP 10 il. the sd
y -r1k curt says:
- ,uestions 10 he considered here are
~ law The defendants contention is
n ~ IL Judgment and decision OF the lower
~ xss erroneous Tor ihe following rea-
u That TIE partial certificates
Gdoud In plaintiff complaint we're Dos
4 q ss,asg not be lawfully Issued for the
- nat the contract mace with Ssmple
not contain AIRY provision or provisions
s,uaff11 what should 10 such partial
! suuistion Of he contract as would rers.4er
i ~ work capable OF separate use for the
\ irpoax OF navigation, or contain any
Encd4r6 or data from whica such deter
\ EaasioE could be made. as provided by
'-r.ssn 1 Of said act Of 1856. ~ SAID act
N Nsrch :, Isss is null and void and IL in
\ ens1rs with section 8, Art. SiI- OF the
7 rrsdsuson Of Warrington. for the reason
=, under said constitutional provision the
= sryormed by the corporate authorities of
I'D towns and villages GU The decree
Z The court rendered vas further erroneous
4 that compound interest VAS allowed
hereby that IL. that ths interest upon the
sutaElueuf payable February s. 1885 also
rsrs interest from February s. 1855.
Rsling on Partial Certificates.
.He think. under the statute the partial
l s,i6cases we're lawfully issued: That the
a..racis were drawn In substantial accord
4 ~ the ACT, and that the act does not re-
aft The contracts TO set forth what shall
institute separate use for the purpose Of
\ xy.ea;ion. This is a fact which we think,
snSer the terms of tie whole act WAS in
rrdsd 70 be left TO the determination OF
/ Ne commissioner Of public lands The pre-
xdEg sections J. , and g. fully set forth
shat ID essential TO the contract, and see
jbr simply sets forth what must be done
o evidence the carrying out OF the contract.
/. Il would be impracticaole for the contract
aio coat,in all the provisions of the act.
Again his IL a construction which the COM
1nlsaGfsr Of public lands placed upon the
aset And, under universal authority sucn
t6Essr1cfion VIII receive the very highest
&pnskkraton from the courts. Then, too.
tiAe fling and raising of the lots described
srtAcat<s issued prior TO the purchase by
Ae defendants gransor. and the contract
4 purchase under which the defendant
- expressly provides that the purchase
I Rser that contract the obligation to pay
tas len. and he cannot nov be heard to
Ag It's validity. Brown vs. Eiwell IL
/ Wsh., ~
\ Ve do not think there Is anything In the
I yoDd proposition. that the act Of 1s3 Is
/ unconstitutional. for at the time these wa
tKay contracts were made the state was
( u absolute owner OF all the tide lands
lkcisd thereby, No appraiaement or plat
l the tide lands had seen filed at tina,
4 te and the states power 10 dispose % the
4ds was absolute AMI unlimited. We think
T contracts were within the constitu
! 4nal power of the state. even II the de-
I hiant were not estopped Ia deny the
anership OF the state. hts right In the
/ anlses being based on his purchase from
state
fNor do we think. under modern author
Is that the third objection can be sttE-
I ted viz: that the court erred In allow
/ \ interest ar 7 per cent. per annum upon
y ins:allment OF interest which fell due
Asrlary s. ISIS. Under the statute. the
9rest would become distinct obligation.
4 time for payment being fixed by the
| Aa,e. This being true the money which
" due at that date was unpaid the state
| i the benefit ~ II ard The Law will allow
a interest as measure Of damages.
PIatnttns' Side Of the Appeal.
s. plaintiffs also appealed from the
Mtment OF the court and ailege two
: fsl Cd That the court instead of allow
. sehe .lrst instaliment of principal ana in
1 tsSs on the whole principal up 20 the
m that the first lnStaiimsnt Injured. sim
tiNi,ow ed the instaliment OF one-tenth of
nflrineipai and interest on that Install
nd only and ~ that TIE court dscrrei
: mi o. redemption. anS IL t. argued that
1 .~hnption is a strictly statutory right and
1 ;ass,hA statute In this case dies not con-
| sert In the case of SAILS TO enforce Hens.
liking IN the secoEd OF these eofiten-
/ ion first, the court hoes not sustain II.
aasaisinisses II briefis as OF minor impor-
isaa. With regard . the other point, the
/. natter II interest tn court. after showing
| .safit Involves sis.fpi- a construction OF the
4 passte ountes as exclusive the construc-
J ion witch the COMMISSIONER placed on the
! law "a a matter ol tecofd nj the time the
1 parshs,ss. was made After quoting he pre-
/ de language Of te certificate. the court
. eur.lutes as f1lloFs-
1 ssThis eertincau places beyond ques-
ton the fact that he interest on the gross
I s.nnnn vas 10 N,faid Al the time OF each
+, snnual nayrnent The purchaser bought
l Nth reference tohe provisions OF this GER
/ nseaie II hecafs Incorporated III his con-
tact a1d he aged IN pay this amount.
ana ufaer the nctrine OF Brown vs. FL
| sen saura he's eStopped from denying
! Ais ohlsatlen. In addition "a this in
, scallop, IS. Fs.est. II Wash. $40. where
ID. lesaiity u this same certificate was
] Assugh. in quiiien. Il was decided by this
eonr. that Z certificate In all RESPECTS
sonforue,l tpha provisions of the law un-
Der which ivsas prepared. This decision
NJ fhjnk o,At 10 be held stare decisis SO
i far as thgs bposit!an Is concerned and for
al the reams announced. we think the
Judgment LIQUID have neen given TO the
Plaintiffs Z. the amount due on the annual
PAYMENTS id for the interest on the gross
amount ". IN conformity with the pro-
| vision. a2se certificate
The i,xmeni VIII he reversed and the
/ cause -~tnde,f Nith Instructions IL enter
| the iudesnt TN conformity with this opin-
ION
nscusg the opinion and the plans OF
| The rorAny. General Manager Ames last
night 81,
'~TsepiDien % the court * favorable 10
/ Is oH hrv p0ln; exCs,t the minor matter
[ % rtyptiou
7 ''wsxpect 20 begin work within .iftaen
/ asvs ser'a3f;iy by January = with the
| aseags Anaconda and Python"
SrrNiER ORDERED To ne SOLD.