Eidemiller v. City of Tacoma

Citations

• 14 Wash. 376
• 44 P. 877
• 1896 Wash. LEXIS 377

Syllabus

<p>MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — ORDINANCES — REPEAL BY IMPLICATION — ORDER OE PAYMENT OE WARRANTS — MANDAMUS — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — OBLIGATION OP CONTRACTS.</p> <p>A charter provision requiring the payment of salaries monthly merely contemplates that warrants therefore shall be issued monthly, not that payment shall be made in cash.</p> <p>A warrant upon the general fund of a city, issued while ordinances were in force providing that revenues accruing to the city, with certain exceptions, should be credited to the general fund, and that warrants should be redeemed by the treasurer in the order of their number and date, should be paid in the order of its issuance if there are sufficient funds, although such funds may have been raised under an ordinance providing for the raising of- revenue to meet municipal expenses for a particular year and proportioning such revenue to funds other than the general fund.</p> <p>An ordinance requiring warrants to be redeemed in the order of their number and date is not repealed by an ordinance apportioning the revenue raised to distinct funds and providing for its disbursement.</p> <p>A law providing for the diversion of a fund out of which a warrant was to be paid in the order of its issuance is invalid as to any warrants issued prior to its passage, on the ground that it would impair the obligation of a contract.</p> <p>A warrantholder is not compelled to resort to mandamus proceedings to compel the city to levy a tax for the purpose of paying its obligation to him, but when there is or should be money in the fund upon which his warrant is drawn, he has a right of action against the city to prevent such money’s being applied to the payment of subsequent claims.</p> <p>A city cannot defeat the payment of a warrant upon the ground of necessity of using its revenues for existence, until it has exhausted all its available means of securing revenue.</p>