Ehrhardt v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 29 December 1903
• Citation: 74 P. 827,33 Wash. 664
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: EHRHARDT v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

74 P. 827

33 Wash. 664

EHRHARDT v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 29, 1903

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Geo. E. Morris, Judge.

Action by Otto Ehrhardt against the city of Seattle. From a judgment dismissing the action, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Wm. Martin and W. A. Keene, for appellant.

M Gilliam and Wm. Parmerlee, for respondent.

MOUNT J.

On the 10th day of September, 1902, appellant was injured by being thrown from his wagon while riding along a public street in the city of Seattle. On the 11th day of October following he filed with the clerk and presented to the city council his verified claim for damages. Thereupon he commenced this action against the city to recover the damages for which his claim was filed. He alleged in his complaint that his injuries were caused by the negligence of the respondent in allowing the street upon which he was driving to be and remain in a defective and dangerous condition. The city demurred to this complaint, and the demurrer was sustained by the court upon the ground that the claim for damages was not presented within time. Plaintiff refused to plead further, whereupon final judgment was entered dismissing the action. Plaintiff appeals, contending (1) that the city charter, which requires claims of this kind to be filed within 30 days, is invalid, and (2) that a sufficient excuse for failure to present the claim within the 30 days is alleged in the complaint.

1. Prior to March 4, 1902, section 29, art. 4, of the city charter of Seattle was as follows: 'All claims for damages against the city must be presented to the city council and filed with the clerk within six months after the time when such claim for damages accrued, and no ordinance shall be passed allowing any such claim or any part thereof or appropriating money or other property to pay or satisfy the same or any part thereof, until such claim has first been referred to the proper department, nor until such department has made its report to the city council thereon, pursuant to such reference. No action shall be maintained against the city for any claim for damages until the same has been presented to the city council and sixty days have elapsed after such presentation.' Article 8 of the city charter of Seattle has reference to the board of public works. Section 29 is as follows: 'Said board shall when authorized by ordinance of the city council construct such sewers, reservoirs and pumping works, whether within or without the city, as may be necessary to carry out the general system of sewerage of the city.' On the 16th day of December, 1901, the city council of Seattle passed the following resolution: 'Resolution No. 635. Proposed Amendment No. 2. A resolution and proposition to amend section 29 of article 8 of the city charter, and providing for the submission of such proposed amendment to the qualified voters of the city of Seattle at the next general election. Be it resolved by the city council of the city of Seattle as follows: That section 29 of article be amended so as to read as follows: Section 29. All claims to read as follows: Section 29. All claims for damages against the city must be presented to the city council and filed with the clerk within thirty days after the time when such claim for damages accrued, and no ordinance shall be passed allowing any such claim or any part thereof, or appropriating money or other property to pay or satisfy the same or any part thereof, until such claim has first been referred to the proper department, nor until such department has made its report to the city council thereon pursuant to said reference. No action shall be maintained against the city for any claim for damages until the same has been presented to the city council and sixty days have elapsed after such presentation.' This resolution was regularly entered upon the journal, and the ayes and noes recorded thereon. Thereafter a notice as required was regularly given for the submission of the proposed amendment to the electors, in which notice it was stated that the proposed amendment was No. 2, and 'the proposed amendment to section 29 of article 8 of the city charter relating to the filing of claims for damages against the city,' and a direction was given to the voters how to vote for and against the proposed amendment. At the election held thereafter on March 4, 1902 the amendment was adopted by a large majority of the elections, and subsequently, by a proclamation of the mayor declared a part of the charter of Seattle. It is contended by appellant that the proposed amendment is invalid for two reasons: (1) Because upon its face the resolution purports to amend section 29, art. 8, to which it is not germane, while section 29, art. 4, remains unchanged; (2) because the object of the resolution is not clearly expressed in its title. It is apparent from a reading of section 29, art. 8, and section 29, art. 4, of the charter above quoted, that the object of the resolution was to amend section 29, art. 4, and that the insertion of the words 'article 8' was a clerical error. The real question therefore is whether or not a resolution of this kind falls within the provision of section 10, art. 4, of the city charter, which is as follows: 'Every legislative act of the city shall be by ordinance; every ordinance shall be clearly entitled and shall contain but one object which shall be clearly expressed in the title. The enacting clause of every...