Culliton v. Chase

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BEALS, Chief Justice.
• Citation: Culliton v. Chase, 173 Wash. 309, 22 P.2d 1049 (Wash. 1933)
• Decision Date: 15 June 1933
• Docket Number: 24491.
• Parties: CULLITON et al. v. CHASE et al., State Tax Commission. McKALE'S, Inc., et al. v. SAME.

22 P.2d 1049

173 Wash. 309

CULLITON et al. v. CHASE et al., State Tax Commission.

McKALE'S, Inc., et al. v. SAME.

No. 24491.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

June 15, 1933

Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; D. F. Wright, Judge.

Action by William M. Culliton and others, and by McKale's Incorporated, and others, against Samuel H. Chase and others comprising the State Tax Commission. From adverse judgments defendants appeal.

Actions held under advisement until further order of the Supreme Court or until the causes can be argued to the court composed of nine judges sitting en banc.

BEALS Chief Justice.

The above-entitled consolidated cases having been argued on April 14, 1933, to the court sitting En Banc (Judge Emmett N. PARKER being absent because of illness), and the members of the court who heard the causes being equally divided in opinion as to the proper action to be taken on the appeal, four standing for affirmance of the judgment appealed from and four for its reversal, and there being consequently no constitutional majority of the court in favor either of reversal or affirmance (Const. art. 4, § 2): It is ordered that the actions be held under advisement until further order of the court or until the causes can be reargued to the court composed of nine judges sitting En Banc.

MITCHELL MILLARD, and STEINERT, Justices.

We dissent. These cases involve the constitutionality of chapter 5 of the Laws of 1933 (Initiative No. 69) which is the graduated Income Tax Law. The actions were tried in the superior court for Thurston county and the act was held unconstitutional. An appeal was taken to this court with the result indicated in the foregoing order. In the hearing upon the appeal the matter was exhaustively argued and thereafter fully considered. The cases have been pending here since their submission on April 14, 1933. Each and every judge participating has had full opportunity to pass upon the matter and has done so. The appeal failed to receive the constitutional majority necessary to reverse the trial court. Hence, the judgment of that court should stand affirmed. This result follows the procedure that has always obtained in this court. In Clise v. Carroll, 163 Wash. 704, 300 P. 1047, and in Edwards v. Carroll, 163 Wash. 704, 300 P. 1048, actions involving certain proceedings with reference to the recall of the mayor of the city of Seattle, exactly the same situation...