Shoultes v. Quast

Citations

• 109 Wash. 510
• 187 P. 356
• 1920 Wash. LEXIS 937

Syllabus

<p>Drains (13-1)—Establishment—Costs and Expenses. Under Rem. Code, § 4226-10, authorizing a change of boundaries of a proposed drainage district and a revision of estimated costs, the county commissioners cannot charge the costs of engineer’s expense which was not incurred in connection with the plans substantially as recommended or which were incurred in a plan which was a substantial abandonment of that originally planned and petitioned for; but the district finally formed may be charged with such part of the costs as was necessarily incurred in the preparation of the district finally adopted.</p> <p>Same (13-1)—Costs'—Attorneys. In the establishment of a drainage district it is proper to allow a reasonable attorney’s fee for special attorneys employed whose services were beneficial to the district as finally created.</p> <p>Same (13-1)—Costs—Modification of Plan. Where in the establishment of a drainage district, two ditches were more feasible than one, as originally planned, it is proper to allow the cost of ditch number two.</p> <p>Mandamus (90)—Scope of Relief. An application for a writ of mandate does not require the court to either grant or reject it in toto.</p>