It  would  have  been  within  the  power  of  the  council  to  have
submitted  the  question  of  validation  at  an  entirely  different
election,  and  the  fact  that  the  legislature  has  provided  that
the  question  of  such  validation  and  of  funding  may  be  sub-
mitted at  the  same  election  cannot  give  a  different  effect  to
the  validating  proceedings  from  that  they  would  have  had
if  the  vote  thereon  had  been  at  an  election  where  no  other


ALLEN  V.  CATLIN.  603


Oct.  1894.]  Opinion  of  the  Court— Ho yt,  J.
question  lyas  submitted.  The  warrants,  after  the  validat-
ing proceedings,  became  the  valid  warrants  of  the  corpora-
tion, and  as  such  entitled  to  be  treated  by  all  the  officers
thereof.
As  we  construe  the  record,  the  action  of  the  superior
court  was  warranted,  and  its  judgment  will  be  affirmed.
Dunbar,  C.  J.,  and  Scott,  Stiles  and  Anders,  JJ.,
concur.
~9oS

0

067

88*

19

9B*2S»

^    9

m

16

700

[No.  1474.    Decided  October  18, 1894.]

I    9    (Mi

Allen  &  Powell,  Ref<pondents^  v.  Jerome  Catlin,  Ap-   }^  ^

pello/nt.  :  40    45l|

DISMISSAL  OF  APPEAL  — JUDGMENT  AGAINST  SURETIES  OBT  APPEAL

BOND.
The  dismissal  of  an  appeal  upon  motion  of  appellant  will  not
oust  the  supreme  court  of  jurisdiction  to  thereafter  enter  judgment
in  favor  of  respondents  against  the  appellant  and  his  sureties  in  the
appeal  bond,  as  under  Laws  1898,  p.  181,  §24,  it  is  the  duty  of  the
court  in  affirming  the  judgment  of  the  lower  court  to  enter  such
judgment  without  motion  therefor  on  the  part  of  the  respondent.
Appeal  from  Superior  Courts  King  County.
Rdfeik  McCuicheon^  for  appellant.
Allen  (&  Powell^  for  respondents.
