Paul v. City of Seattle

Citations

• 40 Wash. 294
• 82 P. 601
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 979

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations — Contracts—Validity—Authority of Officers to Execute — Mode of Execution Prescribed by Ordinance— Ratification of Invalid Implied Contract. Under Seattle city charter, art. 4, § 27, providing that no debt or obligation shall he created except by ordinance, and § 28, providing that no officer shall have power to ratify any invalid claim, a contract for commissions for effecting a sale of municipal bonds, made by the city comptroller and the finance committee of the city council, is unenforceable; and the fact that the city had accepted the benefits of the services cannot amount to a ratification.</p> <p>Same — Custom—Noncompliance With Requirements. The custom of a city to vest its financial control and management in its comptroller and chairman of the finance committee and to adopt the practice and custom of entering into contracts through such officers without strict compliance with the requirements of the charter, pan-not hind the city on a contract not executed or authorized in the manner provided in the charter.</p> <p>Same — Ratification of Implied Contract — To Be by Ordinance. A municipal contract not made in compliance with the requirements of the provisions of the charter requiring it to he by ordinance cannot be ratified except by ordinance.</p> <p>Same — Receipt of Benefits — Estoppel. Where a municipal contract is not executed in the manner required by charter, no estoppel arises against the city by reason of the fact that the contract had been fully executed and the city has received the benefits thereof.</p>