Town of Tukwila v. King County

Citations

• 99 Wash. 439
• 169 P. 824
• 1918 Wash. LEXIS 630

Syllabus

<p>Highways—Construction—Powers of Officers. It is not within the apparent scope of authority of a right-of-way agent or of a deputy prosecuting attorney to bind the county by representations as to the kind of paving to be used upon right of way to be granted the county, as their acts were subject to approval by the board of county commissioners.</p> <p>Same. Any agreement by county commissioners that each should have support of the other as to¡ highways in their respective road districts, is void as against public policy.</p> <p>Same. A county commissioner has no authority to hind the county as to the kind of paving to be used on right of way secured, in view of Rem. Code, § 5879-7, making all plans and specifications for proposed roads subject to the supervision of the state highway commissioner.</p> <p>Same—Paving Material—Ratification. The retention by county commissioners of right of way for a road that the county might have condemned, with knowledge of unauthorized representations by county officers that brick paving would be used, does not ratify the agreement and bind the county to pave with brick; since it does not manifest an intent to ratify and is not utterly inconsistent with any other course of conduct.</p> <p>Same—Paving Contract—Damages. Where an injunction against the use of brick paving was denied because there was no valid contract therefor, damages cannot be recovered for the substitution of other paving.</p>