State ex rel. Titlow v. City of Centralia

Citations

• 93 Wash. 401
• 161 P. 74
• 1916 Wash. LEXIS 1220

Syllabus

<p>Abatement and Revival — Actions in Different Jurisdictions— In Rem — Identity of Issues. Where a city commingled a local improvement fund with its general funds, deposited in a bank which failed, an action in the Federal court to establish a preferred claim by the city to the deposits cannot be pleaded in abatement of a subsequent action brought against the city by the receiver to compel the city to pay local improvement warrants out of the receiver’s dividends, paid to the city on account of the deposits, where the Federal court recognized the right of the receiver to prosecute the second action and protected the parties in their rights by allowing the same right of set-off against that fund as would exist against the warrants, if any; since the same funds and questions are not involved in the two suits.</p> <p>Mandamus — Warrants—Payment. Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a city to pay warrants where there are funds available for their payment and payment is refused.</p> <p>Trusts — Commingled Funds — Withdrawals — Municipal Corporations — Improvement Fund — Liability. Where a city commingled a local improvement trust fund with its general funds deposited in a bank, and there remained continuously on deposit sufficient to meet warrants against the trust fund, the warrants are payable out of the commingled fund.</p> <p>Municipal Corporations — Local Improvement Fund — City Treasurer — Liability of Successor. In mandamus against a city and its city treasurer to compel the payment of warrants, it is no defense that the present city treasurer is not the same person who held the office when the funds were received; as the office is continuous, regardless of the person who fills it.</p>