Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State Ex Rel. Public Utility District No. 1 v. Schwab

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 21, 1952No. 32190Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDonworth, J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part) —I concur in all of the majority opinion except the latter portion which pertains to the interest arrangement with respect to the refunding of bonds.

The RFC commitment to purchase the $16,750,000 of construction bonds is conditioned as to the interest arrangement in substance as follows:

1. The outstanding bonds ($791,000) must be refunded so that the entire new issue ($17,541,000) shall be a first lien on the gross revenues of the district.

*8372. In order to comply with the statute (RCW 54.24.090) providing that the coupon interest rate on refunding…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Misich v. McGuireWashington Supreme Court · 1946

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API