COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ‑- SALE TO COUNTY AIRPORT

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ‑- SALE TO COUNTY AIRPORT

Since county commissioners are the governing body of county airports, sales from one or more of the commissioners to such an airport are against public policy, and void, under subsection 2 of section 82, chapter 249, Laws of 1909 subsec. 2, sec. 2334, Rem. Rev. Stat.).

                                                                  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                                                                   June 20, 1951

Honorable W. J. Beierlein
Representative
Thirtieth District
112 E. Main Street
Auburn, Washington                                                                                                                Cite as:  AGO 51-53 No. 75

Dear Sir:

            In your letter of June 6th you asked the following question, which we answer in the negative.

            May a King County Airport District purchase land from one or more King County Commissioners?

            You are advised:

            Since county commissioners are the governing body of county airports, sales from one or more of the commissioners to such an airport are against public policy, and void, under subsection 2 of section 82, chapter 249, Laws of 1909 (subsec. 2, sec. 2334, Rem. Rev. Stat.).

                                                                     ANALYSIS

            Since a county airport district is a municipal corporation, it may acquire land, but as the governing body of such a district is the Board of County Commissioners, (sec. 13, chapter 182, Laws of 1945, sec. 2722-42 Rem. Supp. 45), any commissioner would be beneficially interested in any sale he might  [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] make to such a municipality, even though the sale might be of property belonging to the community composed of himself and his wife, and such a sale would, therefore, be against public policy, and void, under the statute.

            Subsection 2 of section 82, chapter 249, Laws of 1909 (subsec. 2, sec. 2334, Rem. Rev. Stat.).

            Our letter of September 6, 1934 to the Honorable F. A. Smith, P.A., Klickitat Co.

            State vs. Miller, 32 Wn. (2d) 149, 201 P. (2d) 136.

            Thiemens vs. Sanders, 102 Wash. 453, 173 Pac. 26.

            Woodward vs. Wakefield, 236 Mich. 417, 210 N.W. 322.

            Sturr vs. Elmer, 75 N.J.L. 443, 67 Atl. 1059.

Very truly yours,

SMITH TROY
Attorney General

E. P. DONNELLY
Assistant Attorney General