City of Tacoma v. Fox
Decision Date | 26 August 1930 |
Docket Number | 22541. |
Citation | 158 Wash. 325,290 P. 1010 |
Parties | CITY OF TACOMA v. FOX et al. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; E. D. Hodge, Judge.
J. J Fox and others were severally convicted in the police court of the City of Tacoma of the offense of following the trade of journeyman plumber without submitting to an examination and obtaining a certificate of competency as required by ordinance. Defendants appealed to the superior court, where the several cases were consolidated for hearing and for appeal to the Supreme Court. From judgments of dismissal, the city appeals.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
E. K Murray, Bartlett Rummel, Henderson, Carnahan & Thompson, W W. Mount, and John E. Gallagher, all of Tacoma, for appellant.
A. O Burmeister and J. H. Gordon, all of Tacoma, for respondents.
These several cases all raise the same question, and they were consolidated for hearing in the superior court and have been consolidated for the purposes of this appeal. The several cases were originally instituted in the police court of the city of Tacoma, each charging the offense of following the trade of journeyman plumber in the city of Tacoma without first submitting to an examination and obtaining a certificate of competency as required by Ordinance No. 9981 Ordinance No. 10099 of the city of Tacoma. Each of the respondents was convicted in the police court and a small fine was assessed in each case. Appeals were taken to the superior court and the cases consolidated were there heard upon a demurrer to the complaints. The demurrer was sustained by the trial court, apparently upon the sole ground that the ordinance, in so far as by its terms it forbids engaging in the occupation of journeyman plumber without obtaining a certificate of competency, was invalid under the decision of this court in State ex rel. Richey v. Smith, 42 Wash. 237, 84 P. 851, 854, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 674, 114 Am. St. Rep. 114, 7 Ann. Cas. 577. The city elected to stand upon the complaints and judgments of dismissal followed, from which the city has appealed.
The question involved requires a consideration of only a portion of the ordinance. After prescribing a system of specifications for the installation of plumbing and creating the machinery for the enforcement thereof, the ordinance in section 46 provides: 'The term 'Journeyman Plumber' shall be held and construed to mean and include every person engaged in, or engaging in plumbing as an artisan, or in placing, replacing, installing, constructing, or reconstructing of pipes, fittings, fixtures, or other materials connected with the business of plumbing, in any building, or elsewhere, intended for the conducting of fluids, water or sewage.
Section 47, Ordinance No. 10099, creates an examining board consisting of the commissioner of public welfare, the chief plumbing inspector, the chief examiner of the civil service commission, a master plumber and a journeyman plumber; the last two to be appointed by the mayor and to serve without compensation.
Section 48 provides:
Section 49 reads:
Section 50 provides that all applicants for a certificate shall have had three years' experience as a helper or apprentice or must be a graduate of a recognized trade school which gives at least a two years course. Section 53 contains the usual declaration of separability, and consequently the question of the validity of section 50 is not involved in this proceeding, since even if it be eliminated a complete and workable act remains.
In substance therefore this ordinance prohibits engaging in the trade or occupation of a journeyman plumber by any one who has not first established before the examining board that he is competent to follow the trade. There is not here involved any question of arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the board, nor is it claimed that the ordinance attempts to vest in the examining board arbitrary powers.
The Richey Case, supra, was decided more than twenty-four years ago when legislation of this character was in its infancy but it has never in terms been overruled. The opinion in that case opens with a recognition of the power of the Legislature to enact all needful rules and regulations for the preservation of the health, comfort, and well-being of society. It reviews our previous cases which are anywise in point, reviews decisions from other jurisdictions, quotes extensively from a dissenting opinion in a New York case ( People v. Warden, 144 N.Y. 529, 39 N.E. 686, 27 L. R. A. 781), and from two other cases in the United States Supreme Court ( Lochner v. N. Y., 198 U.S. 45, 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133; Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 4 S.Ct. 652, 28 L.Ed. 585), and then delivers the holding of the court in the following language: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Sears
... ... and for the purpose of discriminating between different ... sections[4 Wn.2d 203] of the same community and city, in ... violation of §§ 2 and 4 of the act ... In the ... second cause of action, it is further alleged that defendant, ... morals, but also to the preservation and promotion of the ... public welfare. [4 Wn.2d 205] Tacoma v. Boutelle, 61 ... Wash. 434, 112 P. 661. In Shea v. Olson, 185 Wash ... 143, 53 P.2d 615, 619, 111 A.L.R. 998, we find the ... ...
-
State v. McCollum
...too late in 1943 to afford time for consideration of that important question by the 1943 session of the legislature. In Tacoma v. Fox, 158 Wash. 325, 290 P. 1010, we State ex rel. Richey v. Smith, 42 Wash. 237, 84 P. 851, 5 L.R.A.,N.S., 674, 114 Am.St.Rep. 114, 7 Ann.Cas. 577, (written a qu......
-
Curtis v. City of Seattle, 46950-4
...incident to the general "police power" of municipalities. See Seattle v. Hill, 72 Wash.2d 786, 797, 435 P.2d 692 (1967); Tacoma v. Fox, 158 Wash. 325, 290 P. 1010 (1930); Const. art. 11, § 11. "(R) egulation of indecent exposure and of conduct inducing to breaches of the peace are tradition......
-
Shea v. Olson
... ... [185 ... Wn. 144]Roberts & Skeel and W. R. McKelvy, all of Seattle, ... and Clifford M. Langhorne, of Tacoma, for appellant ... Cheney ... & Hutcheson, Walter J. Robinson, Jr., and Snively & Bounds, ... all of Yakima, for ... ...