State ex rel. Hardesty v. Superior Court for Spokane County

Citations

• 82 Wash. 497
• 144 P. 708
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1548

Syllabus

<p>Drains — Districts — Powers — Condemnation — Lands Outside District — Statutory Provisions. A drainage district has the power to condemn a right of way outside of the district for the purpose of an outlet for the main ditch, where, by Rem. & Bal. Code, § 4143, the district was given the right of eminent domain generally, without limitation as to whether the property was within or without the district, and later the statute was amended by 3 Id., § 4138, providing that the point of outlet may be within or without the district, without in terms amending the section relating to eminent domain; otherwise the obvious purpose of the legislature in adding the amendment would be defeated by a too restrictive construction.</p> <p>Same — Districts — Proceedings — Resolutions—Condemnation. The fact that a resolution of drainage commissioners is technically defective in not providing for the condemnation of lands outside the district for an outlet to the main ditch, is immaterial where the preliminary resolutions and petition contemplated and described an outlet outside of the district, the question whether the lands were reasonably necessary was duly raised, and no one was prejudiced.</p> <p>Same — Districts—Petition—Sufficiency. Under 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 4145, providing that a petition for the construction of a drainage system shall set forth complete specifications and all necessary plats and plans for the construction thereof, it is sufficient if the specifications enable commissioners to proceed by contracting for constructing the improvement without change.</p>