City of Seattle v. Smyth
| Decision Date | 06 April 1900 |
| Citation | 60 P. 1120,22 Wash. 327 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | CITY OF SEATTLE v. SMYTH et al. |
Appeal from superior court, King county; O. Jacobs, Judge.
A demurrer of Sidney Smyth and others to a complaint charging them with violation of a municipal ordinance of the city of Seattle was sustained, and the city appeals. Affirmed.
Ellis De Bruler, for appellant.
John E. Humphries, Harrison Bostwick, Samuel H. Piles, George Donworth, and James B. Howe, for respondents.
Respondents were charged with the violation of an ordinance of the city of Seattle which makes it unlawful for any contractor or subcontractor upon any of the public works of the city to require or permit any day laborer or mechanic to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day. It is charged in the complaint that the respondents 'did willfully unlawfully permit one John Doe to work and labor * * * more than eight hours in one calendar day.' The superior court sustained a demurrer to the complaint, and the city has appealed.
Statutes and ordinances similar in character have been held unconstitutional by many courts, and we have not been cited to a single case wherein their constitutionality is asserted. The principle upon which they are held to be unconstitutional is that they interfere with the constitutional right of persons to contract with reference to compensation for their services where such services are neither unlawful nor against public policy, nor the employment such as might be unfit for certain classes of persons,--as females and infants. Cooley, Torts (2d Ed.) p. 326. One of the most instructive cases upon the subject is the late one of In re Morgan (Colo. Sup.) 58 P. 1071, wherein the authorities are collated, and the subject very exhaustively treated. See, also, Low v. Printing Co., 41 Neb. 127, 59 N.W. 362, 24 L. R. A. 702, and Ex parte Kuback, 85 Cal. 274, 24 P. 737, 9 L. R. A. 482. The judgment of the superior court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McCollum, 28809.
... ... Richards, of Everett, and Will G. Beardslee and George F ... Ward, both of Seattle, for appellant ... Leslie ... R. Cooper, C. P. Brownlee, and Philip Sheridan, ... Krech, supra, was ... properly overruled. See Patton v. City of ... Bellingham, 179 Wash. 566, 38 P.2d 364, 98 A.L.R. 1076 ... Judge ... 225, 52 P ... 1063, as authority ... In ... Seattle v. Smyth, 22 Wash. 327, 60 P. 1120, 79 ... Am.St.Rep. 939, which was overruled sub silentio by State ... ...
-
Sturgess v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co
...R. I. 77. 46 Atl. 234, 48 L. R. A. 775, 84 Am. St. Rep. 818; Young v. Commonwealth, 101 Va. 853, 45 S. E. 327; Seattle v. Smyth. 22 Wash. 327, 60 Pac. 1120, 79 Am. St. Rep. 939; Gillespie v. People, 188 Ill. 176, 58 N. E. 1007, 52 L. R. A. 283, 80 Am. St. Rep. 176; People v. Coler, 166 N. Y......
-
State v. McCollum, 28809.
...'virtually overruled' case Philadelphia Mortgage & Trust Co. v. New Whatcom, 19 Wash. 225, 52 P. 1063, as authority. In Seattle v. Smyth, 22 Wash. 327, 60 P. 1120, 79 Am.St.Rep. 939, which was overruled sub silentio by State v. Buchanan, 29 Wash. 602, 70 P. 52, 59 L.R.A. 342, 92 Am.St.Rep. ......
-
Peterson v. Hagan
...exercise of the police power on the hypothesis that the legislature may validly regulate wages and hours of labor. City of Seattle v. Smyth, 22 Wash. 327, 60 P. 1120, to the contrary Because City of Seattle v. Smyth, supra, decided that a Seattle ordinance which prohibited any contractor up......