Hemen v. City of Ballard

Citations

• 40 Wash. 81
• 82 P. 277
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 941

Syllabus

<p>Limitation or Actions — Diversion oe Special Fund eor Local Improvements — Payment oe Later Warrants — Actual and Constructive Notice — Accrual oe Action. The right of action against a city for the wrongful diversion of a special fund, provided for the payment of warrants, does not accrue until the holder of the warrant has actual notice of the diversion, constructive notice by the public record of payment of subsequent warrants not being sufficient to start the running of the statute (Fullerton, J., dissenting).</p> <p>Municipal Corporations — Special Fund eor Local Improvement —Wrongful Diversion by City — Warrants—Payment Out oe Order oe Priority. A city renders itself liable to the holder of special fund street improvement warrants by paying subsequent warrants out of the order of their priority, where the fund was insufficient in amount to pay all the warrants issued against it, and nothing was left to pay the prior warrants.</p> <p>Same — Improvements at Crossing Assessable to City — Same a Part oe Special Assessment Fund. Under Bal Code, § 943, making the city liable for the cost of street improvements at street intersections and crossings, such cost, where an entire contract is made for the whole improvement, is to be paid by the city into the special fund for the benefit of special fund warrants to he paid in the order of their priority, and the payment of the city’s share of the cost, by its general fund or street fund warrants out of their order, is a wrongful diversion, operating to the prejudice of the holders of special fund warrants, where the special assessment including the city’s share is insufficient to pay the entire cost of the improvement.</p>