Opinion
No. 35340.
January 26, 1961.
APPEAL AND ERROR — REVIEW — FINDINGS. Where there is evidence in the record to support a finding of the trial court, such finding will be accepted as an established fact for the purposes of appeal.
COUNTIES — UNLAWFUL EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS — RECORDS. An action to enjoin a county auditor from keeping certain records, on the ground that the maintenance of such records constituted an improper use of public funds, was properly dismissed where it appeared that public funds were not being nor about to be expended in maintaining the records.
See Am. Jur., Appeal and Error, § 900.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Lewis County, No. 24462, John J. Langenbach, J., entered July 3, 1959, upon findings in favor of the defendant, in an action for injunctive relief. Affirmed.
Hull, Armstrong Vander Stoep, for appellant.
John Panesko and Jas. E. Sareault, for respondents.
This, allegedly, is a taxpayer's lawsuit to prevent an improper use of public funds.
The plaintiff, manager of a title insurance company in Lewis County, relying upon Smith v. Lamping (1902), 27 Wn. 624, 68 P. 195, and Dirks v. Collin (1905), 37 Wn. 620, 79 P. 1112, asks (a) that the auditor and the commissioners of Lewis County be enjoined from keeping certain records (referred to by the parties as "Tract Indices" ), and (b) that the tract indices be no longer available for use by county officials or the public; in short, that the tract indices be abated or destroyed.
As stated by appellant, the so-called "Tract Indices" are a thirty-five-volume index of documents recorded by the county auditor "pertaining to real estate indexed geographically according to government plat and survey." Furthermore, as stated by respondents, the tract indices cover "all real estate transactions in Lewis County commencing over 100 years ago" and "were kept up until approximately the year 1931, at which time entries were discontinued."
[1, 2] The trial court entered findings of fact to the effect that public funds were not being nor about to be expended in maintaining the tract indices. There is evidence in the record to support this finding. Thus, as we have said in numerous cases, we accept and adopt this finding as a verity; i.e., as an established fact for the purposes of this appeal. The decisions in the Lamping and Collin cases were based upon an anticipated or an actual and continuing improper expenditure of public funds. We are convinced this is a significant distinction, and that the above-cited cases are not controlling in the instant case. We agree with the trial court's conclusions of law. The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
HILL, WEAVER, ROSELLINI, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.