Western Indemnity Co., Throop v. (Cal. Western Workman's Pub. Soc., Peltola v. Weston v. Hines (Kan.). ... Page Wilson v. State (Ariz.). 263 340 Wilson, Weigand v. (Kan.) Page 301 .1065 .... 581 .1003 187 of 566 862 160 624 1, [Cases in which rehearings have been denied, without the rendition of a written opinion, since the publication of the original opinions in previous volumes of this Reporter.] THE PACIFIC REPORTER VOLUME 193 (112 Wash. 446) port the exercise of the right of eminent domain LANGDON et al. v. CITY OF WALLA WAL- under Laws Or. 1909, p. 256, in view of the LA et al. (No. 15899.) (Supreme Court of Washington. Sept. 13, 1920.) 1. Municipal corporations 277-Right of city to acquire property beyond state limits for waterworks. In view of Rem. Code 1915, § 7612, subd. 44, and section 8005, relating to acquiring of waterworks by second class cities, such a city has the right to acquire property beyond the limits of the state for the improvement of waterworks system, such property being held in its proprietary, and not in its governmental, capacity. 2. Municipal corporations 277-Permitting city to own lands in another state not an assumption of extraterritorial jurisdiction. To allow a city of this state to acquire waterworks property in adjoining state is not an assumption of extraterritorial jurisdiction, such property being owned only in the city's proprietary capacity, and the rights therein are left to the protection of the courts of that state and of the United States. 3. Municipal corporations 277-State might withhold right of foreign municipal corporations to hold property. States may withhold from cities of other states the right to acquire and hold property under proprietary right in them just as they may withhold such right from other foreign corporations. 4. Eminent domain 9-City in Washington may obtain land for waterworks in state of Oregon by condemnation. A city of the second class in this state may in its proprietary right acquire by condemnation in the exercise of the power of eminent domain property for waterworks system within the state of Oregon in view of Laws Or. 1909, p. 256, granting such right; the two states having passed reciprocal laws therefor, providing such law does not violate the Constitution of Oregon. 5. Eminent domain 28-Acquiring of land for waterworks by city of another state held beneficial use. The acquiring by a second class city of this state of land for waterworks purposes in the state of Oregon is a public use, which will sup reciprocal laws of the two states upon such 277-City not en joined from acquiring land in other state for waterworks because of inability to condemn necessary property in forest reserve, where right therein exists by grant. In a proceeding to enjoin a second class city of this state from attempting to acquire land for waterworks in another state, a suggestion that the city might be impeded because not able to exercise eminent domain within the limits of a national forest reserve is without merit, where the city has already acquired such right, and also express provisions for acquiring such rights are made by Act Cong. Feb. 1, 1905 (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 823, 5093, 5152, 4947, 5142). 7. Evidence 83 (2)-Presumption that authorities are not selling bonds in violation of ordinance or statute. Where it was provided by ordinance submitted to voters that none of the waterworks bonds should be sold at less than par value and accrued interest, but also that the sale should be in manner deemed by the city commission as for the best interest of the city, which is, in 8007, it must be presumed that the city authorsubstance, the 'provision of Rem. Code 1915, § ities are not contemplating selling the bonds at such a discount below par as will result in the city's paying more than the maximum rate allowed by statute and ordinance, so that no restraining order need issue. 8. Municipal corporations 279-Vote held to have ratified both ordinance and waterworks improvement submitted by it. Where a notice of election for waterworks bonds, as well as the ordinance, submitted for An ordinance for waterworks improvement and bonds containing emergency clause must be For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes held in no event subject to the referendum provided by Rem. Code 1915, § 7670-22, because by its terms and by the express provision of the statute under which it was passed it is within itself a provision for a referendum, and also it was passed under the authority of a law relating to acquiring public utilities, rather than under general powers, and is thereby excluded from such referendum by statute, so that it is immaterial that the 30 days for referendum had not elapsed before publication of notice of election thereon. Walla Walla is a city of the second class under the laws of this state, and has a commission form of government. It is situated about 5 miles north of the southern boundary of this state, which is also the northern boundary of the state of Oregon. Its present water supply comes from Mill creek, the source of which is east of the city, in this state; from whence it flows southerly across the state line into Oregon, thence for a distance of some 4 miles southerly, westerly, and 10. Municipal corporations 279-Water-northwesterly through Umatilla county of works ordinance, fairly informing voters of the nature and extent of improvements, held sufficient. An ordinance, submitting a proposition for acquiring property for a waterworks extension, specifying in general terms which fairly informed the voters of the general nature and extent of the proposed improvements, was sufficient, under Rem. Code 1915, § 8006, requiring corporate authorities to specify by ordinance the system or plan proposed. 11. Municipal corporations 279 - Ordinance held to submit one proposition, not two. that state, to and across the state line back into this state, and thence in a northwesterly direction to and through the city of Walla Walla. The city already possesses some property rights enjoyed by it in the maintenance of its present water system, situated upon Mill creek, in Oregon. It seems to be one of the conditions of our problem, and we shall assume for argument's sake as we proceed that the proposed additions, betterments, and extensions of the city's waterworks system are such that in order to successfully make them it will be necessary for the city to acquire additional property rights upon and adjacent to Mill creek in Oregon, by the exercise of the eminent domain power of that state; and if the city has not the power to exercise the eminent domain power of that state, the betterments and extensions to its waterworks system, as proposed, cannot be made; and the city and its officers should be enjoined from issuing or disposing of the bonds here in A proposed municipal indebtedness for wa- question, to that end. On November 11, 1919, terworks improvements under Rem. Code 1915, the city commission, acting under the author§ 8007, in the sum of $500,000, held not to in-ity given by our statutes relating to the acquicrease the city's debt beyond the total tax lim-sition of public utilities, and the making of it of 10 per cent. of taxable property as fixed by Const. art. 8, § 6. additions, betterments, and extensions thereto, Rem. Code, § 8005 et seq., passed an ordiMain, Mitchell, Mackintosh, and Bridges, JJ., nance providing for the submission to the votdissenting. A municipal proposition for construction of a reservoir held not so independent of other proposed waterworks extensions, submitted to voters by an ordinance, as to have the legal effect of submitting two propositions, but only to submit one. 12. Municipal corporations 864 (3)-Proposed debt for waterworks held not to increase debt beyond constitutional limit. En Banc. ers of the city the proposition of making additions, and betterments and extensions to Appeal from Superior Court, Walla Walla its waterworks system, and the issuance and County; Edward C. Mills, Judge. Suit by John W. Langdon and others against the City of Walla Walla and others. From a judgment for defendants, the plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed. disposition of the city's general indebtedness bonds to pay the cost thereof, to the amount of $500,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary for that purpose. The proposition as set forth in the ordinance is, in substance; that there shall be constructed a 24,000,000 Evans & Watson, of Walla Walla, for ap- gallon concrete reservoir, specifying its appellants. proximate location, which shall be connected H. B. Noland, of Walla Walla, for respond- with the pipe lines of the city's distributing ents. system; that a new diversion dam and intake be constructed on Mill creek, within the Wenaha National Forest Reserve in Umatilla county, Or., to be connected by pipe lines with the city's existing system; that the city acquire title to, or permanent control over, such lands in Umatilla county, Or., as may be necessary to make the proposed additions, betterments, and extensions, and to preserve the purity of the water to be used; that "the City of Walla Walla, either by purchase or PARKER, J. The plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing the city of Walla Walla and its officers from making certain proposed additions, betterments, and extensions to its existing waterworks system, and issuing and disposing of general indebtedness bonds of the city to pay the cost thereof. A hearing upon the merits in the superior court for Walla Walla county, resulted in a judgment denying to the plaintiffs the relief prayed for, from condemnation, shall acquire in the manner which they have appealed to this court. provided by law, all necessary lands, rights |