Case Name: CARRUTHERS v. ASTORIA
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1914-09-08
Citations: 72 Or. 505
Docket Number: 
Parties: CARRUTHERS v. ASTORIA.
Judges: Mr. Justice Bean and Mr. Justice McNary concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 505–513

Head Matter:
Argued July 13,
reversed September 8,
rehearing denied October 8, 1914.
CARRUTHERS v. ASTORIA.
(143 Pac. 899, 1106.)
ON MOTION TO DISMISS.
Injunction — Proceedings to Procure — Parties.
1. In a suit to enjoin the enforcement of an ordinance authorizing payment of warrants, issued against a prospective special fund, from the general fund of a city, the warrant-holders are not necessary parties.
(As to injunction against enforcement of void municipal ordinance, see note in 118 Am. St. Rep. 372.]
Appeal and Error — Right to Review.
2. In a suit to enjoin enforcement of an ordinance authorizing payment from a city general fund of warrants issued against a pros-
pective special fund, the issuance of the warrants by the city auditor after the plaintiffs had appealed from a decree for defendants does not take the subject of the suit out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
ON THE MERITS.
Municipal Corporations — Indebtedness—Payment—General or Special Fund.
3. Where a city charter provides that no part of the expense of the improvement of any street shall be paid from the general fund, but the whole shall be defrayed by special assessments, the eity has no power to authorize the payment of warrants against the special fund for a street improvement from the city’s general fund.
[As to what is within the meaning of prohibition against municipal indebtedness, see note in 44 Am. St. Rep. 229.]
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
Municipal Corporations — Public Improvements — Liability of City.
4. In order to relieve a contractor of the duty to carry out his contract for a public improvement and to hold the city liable for the expense of the work done on the ground that the eity determined that the manner of doing the work was dangerous to the adjoining property, it must be shown that it was an impossibility for the contractor to do the .work otherwise than in the manner being followed.
From Clatsop: James U. Campbell, Judge.
This is a suit by Robert Carruthers and Frans Kankkonen against City of Astoria (a municipal corporation), Olof Anderson, as auditor and police judge of the City of Astoria, and H. F. Prael, as city treasurer of the City of Astoria, and Scandinavian-American Bank (a corporation). From a decree for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Respondents now move to dismiss the appeal, the grounds of which are set forth in the opinion of the court.
Motion to Dismiss Denied.
Mr. A. W. Norblad, Mr. Albert M. Smith and Mr. John M. Gearin, for the motion.
Mr. George C. Fulton, contra.
Department 2.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
Mr. Justice Eakin
delivered the opinion of the court.
The ground for this motion is that the holders of the warrants sought to be benefited by Ordinance No. 4416 are necessary parties to the suit. This is not a proceeding to cancel any warrants, but to enjoin the enforcement of Ordinance No. 4416, authorizing payment of warrants issued against a prospective special fund from the general fund. The rights of the warrant-holders under their warrants are not in any way attacked by the suit, and whatever relief or benefit they may anticipate from the ordinance is a mere gratuity and not a legal right. If the city is liable to them at all events and independently of their warrants, they will not be precluded by any decree entered in this suit if they are not parties to it. Furthermore, there are about 170 of such warrants issued against the prospective special fund, payable to bearer, and it is not known who are the holders thereof other than the one who has appeared herein. It is said in the syllabus in Mandeville v. Riggs, 27 U. S. (2 Pet.) 482, 7 L. Ed. 493):
"It is well known that there are cases in which a court of equity dispenses with such a proceeding [presence of the stockholders], when the parties are very numerous and unknown; and the adoption of the rule would evidently impede, if not defeat, the purposes of justice": Brown v. Trousdale, 138 U. S. 389 (34 L. Ed. 987, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 308).
Even if the warrant-holders were proper parties, which the writer doubts, they are not necessary parties. Plaintiffs' appeal having been taken before the warrants wejre issued by the auditor under said Ordinance No. 4416, the issuance of the warrants did not prejudice plaintiff's appeal. The suit is to enjoin payment, as well as to prevent the issuance of warrants; and, if they were issued prematurely, that fact does not take the subject of suit out of the jurisdiction of the appellate court. If Ordinance No. 4416 was void, the city is acting at its peril. The power and authority of the city to pass the ordinance is the burden of this suit.
The motion is denied.