Langdon v. City of Walla Walla

Citations

• 112 Wash. 446
• 193 P. 1
• 1920 Wash. LEXIS 797

Syllabus

<p>Eminent Domain (8)—By Cities—Powers—Property in Other State—Water Supply—Statutes. Under Rem. Code, § 7612 and § 8005 granting cities power to acquire waterworks within or with-cut the corporate limits, the city of Walla Walla has power to acquire and own property situated in the state of Oregon, upon consent of that state, for the purpose of making extensions and betterments to its waterworks system; and the exercise of such power is not the assumption of extra-territorial jurisdiction over property situated in another state (Main, Mitchell, Mackintosh, and Bridges, JJ., dissent).</p> <p>Same (8, 11)—Powers of City—Property in Other State—Statutes—Validity. Laws of Oregon, ch. 182, p. 256, enacted February 23, 1909, granting to municipal corporations of any state adjoining the state of Oregon power to purchase or condemn lands within the state of Oregon for the purpose of obtaining a water supply, which was followed in all particulars by the enactment by this state on the following day of an act granting reciprocal powers to the cities of the state of Oregon, is not unconstitutional in that it permits the right to condemn property of that state for a public use for the benefit of the people of another state, but will be held a valid exercise of the state’s power of eminent domain to further the public interests of a sister state, in return for reciprocal privileges to the cities of Oregon (Main. Mitchell, Mackintosh, and Bridges, JJ., dissent).</p> <p>Municipal Corporations (525)—Public Utilities—Bonds—Sale at Discount—Statutes. In an action to enjoin the issuance and sale of municipal bonds for a public improvement, the mere allegation in the complaint that the city authorities are threatening to sell “a part only of said bonds at par, and a part thereof at 95 cents on the dollar,” in violation of a provision of the ordinance that “none of said bonds shall be sold or issued ... at less than par value and accrued interest,” does not warrant the court in interfer