Kinkade v. Witherop

Citations

• 29 Wash. 10
• 69 P. 399
• 1902 Wash. LEXIS 547

Syllabus

<p>IRRIGATION DISTRICTS ISSUANCE OF BONDS PROCEEDINGS - — ■ DUE PROCESS OF LAW.</p> <p>The fact that a section in the act authorizing the organization of irrigating districts and the sale of-bonds therefor makes provision for testing the legality of proceedings had thereunder by permitting the institution of a special proceeding by the board of directors of the irrigation district, without the requirement of personal service upon the property owners affected, would have no bearing upon the question whether the proceedings had for the organization of the district, or the issuance of bonds, were without due process of law, but that objection would apply only to the judgment rendered in the special proceedings and would not thereby affect the constitutionality of the whole act'.</p> <p>SAME- — - VALIDITY OF BONDS.</p> <p>An irrigation district was in debt to a contractor for work on its canal in the sum of $18,300 and was unable to pay him, by reason of the failure of the purchaser of its bonds to advance the money thereon. The contractor agreed with the board of directors of the district to accept bonds at ninety per cent, of their face value in payment of his claim, and bonds of the par value of $20,000 were accordingly delivered to him in satisfaction of his claim. Held, that a consideration existed for the issue of the bonds, and that the transaction was equivalent to a payment in cash for their sale.</p> <p>SAME-INTEREST.</p> <p>A purchaser of bonds issued by an irrigation district was unable to pay the price for the bonds issued and dated July 1st. In September following these bonds were delivered to another purchaser who gave $18,300 for $20,000 worth of bonds under an agreement to take them at ninety per cent, of their par value. At the time of payment for the bonds nearly three months’ interest had accrued thereon, while the contract under which they were sold provided that they should draw interest “from and after the date of payment therefor.” Held, that the