Lorence v. Bean

Citations

• 18 Wash. 36
• 50 P. 582
• 1897 Wash. LEXIS 100

Syllabus

<p>MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—JUDGMENT AGAINST POR PERSONAL INJURIES — HOW COLLECTED — MANDAMUS — WARRANTS — ORDER OP PAYMENT.</p> <p>In the absence of a special provision in the charter of a city, relating to the payment of judgments, the method of payment is governed by CodeProe., § 674 (Bal. Code, § 5676), which provides that, “if a judgment be given for the recovery of money or damages ” against a municipal corporation, no execution shall issue thereon, but upon presentation of a certified transcript thereof to the officer “ who is authorized to draw orders on the treasury, . . . such officer shall draw an order on such treasurer for the amount of such judgment. . . . Thereafter such order shall be presented for payment and paid with like effect and in like manner as other orders.”</p> <p>The fact that a city has reached its limit of indebtedness is not a defense in an action for personal injuries occasioned by negligence, and, therefore, the fact of such indebtedness would not justify the officer , in refusing to issue a warrant for a judgment against the city in such action.</p> <p>A warrant given for a judgment for damages against a city is entitled to payment in the order of its issue and would not be postponed in favor of claims for necessary municipal expenses.</p> <p>Mandamus will not lie to compel a city to levy a special tax for the payment of a judgment against the city for a tort.</p>