State Ex Rel. P.U.D. Etc. v. Wylie

182 P.2d 706, 28 Wash. 2d 113, 1947 Wash. LEXIS 405
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedJune 16, 1947
DocketNo. 29997.
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 182 P.2d 706 (State Ex Rel. P.U.D. Etc. v. Wylie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. P.U.D. Etc. v. Wylie, 182 P.2d 706, 28 Wash. 2d 113, 1947 Wash. LEXIS 405 (Wash. 1947).

Opinions

Hill, J.

This cause is before this court on an appeal from the superior court of Skagit county, which, on May 10, 1946, entered an order directing the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate directed to the appellant, John Wylie, as secretary of the commission of public utility district No. 1 of Skagit county, Washington, commanding him, as such secretary, to attest and affix the seal of said district to electric revenue bonds in the aggregate principal amount of one hundred thirty-five million dollars, and like *115 wise commanding him, as such secretary, to attest and affix the seal of said district to certain contracts with nine other public utility districts.

Public utility district No. 1 of Skagit county, Washington, comprises all of Skagit county and was organized under the public utility district law (Laws of 1931, chapter 1, p. 3), and will hereinafter be referred to as the “Skagit district.”

The Skagit district seeks to issue revenue bonds in the sum of one hundred thirty-five million dollars, for the purchase of certain properties of the Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Massachusetts corporation, which company will hereinafter be referred to as “Puget Sound.” These properties include all of Puget Sound’s facilities for generating, transmitting, and distributing electric current, together with certain facilities that are used, in part, for the production,, distribution, and sale of steam for heating purposes in a portion of the central business district in the city of Seattle. It is conceded that the amount of one hundred thirty-five million dollars, required for the purchase of the Puget Sound properties, was arrived at by adding the following items, all computed as of October 31, 1945:

“(1) A net liquidating dividend of $18.00 per share for each of the 2,177,879 shares of common stock now outstanding ...................................$39,201,822.00
(2) An amount equal to $110.00 per share for each of the 137,500 shares of preferred stock of the company now outstanding (exclusive of accrued dividends thereof to date of redemption) being the price required to be paid when such stock is called for redemption prior to maturity................ 15,125,000.00
(3) An amount equal to $1,042.50 for each of the 4%% mortgage bonds of the company now outstanding (exclusive of accrued interest to date of redemption at the rate of 4%% per annum), being the price required to be paid when such bonds are called for redemption prior to maturity......... 53,662,688.00
(4) An amount equal to the face amount of serial 3ys% notes of the company now outstanding (exclusive of accrued interest to date of redemption), being the price required to be paid when such notes are called for redemption prior to maturity.. 2,812,500.00
*116 (5) An amount equal to the accrued interest on debt obligations and accrued dividends and premiums on mortgage bonds, preferred stock and notes.... 1,268,812.00
$112,070,872.00
The total determined and unascertained liabilities of the Company including expenses incident to the dissolution of the Company, ad valorem taxes, federal income and excess profit taxes............. $6,857,700
Net current assets including cash on hand, materials and supplies, accounts receivable, prepayments, unbilled revenues and estimated receipts from sale of non-electric properties ............................... 6,759,000 98,700.00
$112,169,572.00
Reserve for possible capital gains tax or for
capital improvements to the properties____$15,723,200
Bond discount .......................... 1,400,000
Working capital ......................... 5,245,228
Payment to Fiscal Agent................. 262,000
Contingent dissolution expense, and contingent liability to stockholders.............. 200,000 22,830,428.00
$135,000,000.00”

(In addition to the two hundred sixty-two thousand dollars of revenue bonds to be issued for payment of the fiscal agent, the Skagit district is to issue up to one million forty-eight thousand dollars in certificates of indebtedness to him, as the remainder of his compensation, making a total maximum compensation for him of one million three hundred ten thousand dollars.)

The properties of Puget Sound are located in eighteen counties of the state, to wit: Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, Island, King, Pierce, Kitsap, Jefferson, Mason, Grays Harbor, Thurston, Cowlitz, Lewis, Pacific, Chelan, Kittitas, Grant, and Douglas. Public utility districts have been organized and exist in all of these counties except King, Pierce, and Island.

For the purposes of this purchase, the Puget Sound properties have been classified as “production” and “distribution.” The production properties include the following generating plants:

*117 Demonstrated Capability in Kilowatts
White River (hydroelectric)................ 63,000
Snoqualmie Falls (hydroelectric)............ 21,000
Shuffleton (steam) ........................ 85,000
Electron (hydroelectric) ................... 23,000
Baker River (hydroelectric)................ 41,100
Rock Island (hydroelectric)................. 80,000
Tumwater (hydroelectric) .................. 5,250
* Georgetown (steam) .......................
318,350

The production properties also include most of the transmission lines and all or part of forty substations and other miscellaneous properties, as set forth in exhibit No. 32. They are all to be operated and managed by the production division as though they comprised a separate and distinct business enterprise. The portion of the one hundred thirty-five million dollar purchase price allocated to these properties is sixty million eight hundred ninety-seven thousand dollars.

The distribution properties include the following hydroelectric generating plants: Nooksack, Leavenworth, Dryden, Entiat, Olympia, and Kalama, and the Chehalis steam electric generating plant. (These are plants of relatively small capacity, the largest having a demonstrated capability of 2,420 kilowatts.) The distribution properties also include some transmission lines, all or part of numerous substations, all of the distribution lines, and other miscellaneous property, as set forth in exhibit No. 33. The distribution properties are to be disposed of as follows:

(a) The Cowlitz, Lewis, Pacific No. 2, Whatcom, Chelan, Kitsap, Mason No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Shoulberg v. Public Utility District No. 1
280 P.3d 491 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2012)
Ago
Washington Attorney General Reports, 2005
Washington Water Jet Workers Ass'n v. Yarbrough
90 P.3d 42 (Washington Supreme Court, 2004)
Kightlinger v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1
81 P.3d 876 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2003)
Kightlinger v. Public Utility District No. 1
119 Wash. App. 501 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2003)
Zachman v. Whirlpool Financial Corp.
869 P.2d 1078 (Washington Supreme Court, 1994)
City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of City of Tacoma
743 P.2d 793 (Washington Supreme Court, 1987)
Witters v. Commission for the Blind
689 P.2d 53 (Washington Supreme Court, 1984)
Chemical Bank v. Washington Public Power Supply System
666 P.2d 329 (Washington Supreme Court, 1983)
Farris v. Munro
662 P.2d 821 (Washington Supreme Court, 1983)
State v. Green
588 P.2d 1370 (Washington Supreme Court, 1979)
Public Utility District No. 1 v. Taxpayers
479 P.2d 61 (Washington Supreme Court, 1971)
City of Des Moines v. Hemenway
437 P.2d 171 (Washington Supreme Court, 1968)
State v. Coma
417 P.2d 853 (Washington Supreme Court, 1966)
Nationwide Papers, Inc. v. Northwest Egg Sales, Inc.
416 P.2d 687 (Washington Supreme Court, 1966)
Water District No. 97 v. Washington Waterworks Corp.
364 P.2d 431 (Washington Supreme Court, 1961)
Roehl v. Public Utility District No. 1
261 P.2d 92 (Washington Supreme Court, 1953)
State Ex Rel. Public Utility District No. 1 v. Schwab
246 P.2d 1081 (Washington Supreme Court, 1952)
Casco Co. v. Public Utility District No. 1
226 P.2d 235 (Washington Supreme Court, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 P.2d 706, 28 Wash. 2d 113, 1947 Wash. LEXIS 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-pud-etc-v-wylie-wash-1947.