Gies v. Broad

• Decision Date: 17 January 1906
• Citation: 41 Wash. 448,83 P. 1025
• Parties: GIES v. BROAD.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

83 P. 1025

41 Wash. 448

GIES v. BROAD.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 17, 1906

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; George W. Belt, Judge.

Action by George Gies against James C. Broad. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Cullen & Dudley, for appellant.

Robertson Miller & Rosenhaupt, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

The respondent commenced an action in the justice court for Spokane precinct, in Spokane county, to recover a balance of $15.91 claimed to be due him as wages for services rendered the appellant. He recovered in the justice's court, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal to the superior court of Spokane county. This appeal is from the judgment of the superior court. From the record it appears that the appellant had a contract with the city of Spokane for the improvement of one of its streets. By ordinance of that city it is provided that on all work done by contract for the city in the improvement of its streets eight hours in any calendar day shall constitute a day's work, and that the rate of wages for laborers on such work who labor by the day shall not be less than $2.25 for a calendar day's work of eight hours. The respondent had worked nine hours in each calendar day and had been paid wages at the minimum rate fixed by the ordinance. The action was instituted to recover for the extra time the respondent labored in excess of the time fixed as a day's work by the ordinance.

The appeal is brought within the jurisdiction of this court by reason of the fact that the action involves the validity of the ordinance above mentioned; the appellant contending that that part of the ordinance which fixes the minimum sum to be paid as wages for a day's labor on any public improvement undertaken by the city of Spokane, is unconstitutional and void. He has, however, suggested reasons for reversing the judgment even should we determine the ordinance to be valid but it is evident that under the rule announced by us in Henry v. Thurston County, 31 Wash. 638, 72 P. 488 these questions are not before us. In that case we held that on an appeal where we had jurisdiction solely because the validity of a statute was involved we would review the judgment appealed from only in case we found the statute invalid, and then only to the extent that it was affected by the invalid satute. This precludes any inquiry as to the proper construction of the ordinance. If we find the...