Thompson v. Pierce County

Citations

• 113 Wash. 237
• 193 P. 706
• 1920 Wash. LEXIS 834

Syllabus

<p>Highways (31, 36) — Construction—Powers oe Commissioners— Diversion of Fund Authorized for Special Purpose. An election authorizing the issuance of bonds for the construction of new roads and the improvement of established roads, and specifying by name a certain highway then existing, must be construed as referring to that highway and its route as existing and known by that name.</p> <p>Same. Where an election authorized the issuance of bonds for the improvement of an existing highway, along a specified route, it is a material departure which the county commissioners cannot legally make, to expend funds in the construction of a mile and a half of new road in place of repairing a shorter portion of the existing highway.</p> <p>Same. Where the county commissioners, in their notice of election to authorize highway bonds, specified the exact route of an existing highway to be improved, they cannot, after the election, make a material departure in the route under the authority of Rem. Code, § 5101-4, which merely provides that the notice need not describe the road with particularity, but that it shall be sufficient to describe the same by termini and a general statement of its course.</p>