Herrett Trucking Co. v. Washington Public Service Commission
| Decision Date | 24 August 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 36000,36000 |
| Citation | 364 P.2d 505,58 Wn.2d 542 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | HERRETT TRUCKING COMPANY, Inc.; Pacific Highway Transport, Inc.; Inland Motor Freight, Inc.; Coast Lee & Eastes, Inc.; Black Ball Freight Service, Inc.; Mitchell Bros. Truck Line, Inc.; and Ralph, Carl A. and Clinton D. Pozzi, doing business as Pozzi Bros. Transportation Company, Respondents, v. WASHINGTON PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Francis Pearson, Chairman, Patrick D. Sutherland and Dayton A. Witten, Commissioners; Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, and D. A. Whitley, Inc., Appellants. STATE of Washington ex rel. CEMENT DISTRIBUTORS, INCORPORATED; Adams Transport, Inc.; Hamilton Trucking Service, Inc.; and Emil Youngquist, doing business as Northern Freight Lines, Respondents, v. WASHINGTON PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Francis Pearson, Chairman, Patrick D. Sutherland and Dayton A. Witten, Members thereof; D. A. Whitley, Inc.; and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co., doing business as Milwaukee Road, Appellants. |
John J. O'Connell, Atty. Gen., Duane S. Stookey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Wash. Public Service Commission.
Warren H. Ploeger, Seattle, for Chicago, M., St. Paul & Pac. Ry. Co. and D. A. Whitley, Inc.
Reaugh, Hart & Allison, William Q. Marshall, Seattle, Reuben C. Youngquist, Mount Vernon, for Cement Distributors, Inc., Adams Transport, Inc., Hamilton Trucking Service, Inc. and Emil Youngquist, d/b/a Northern Freight Lines.
Don Cary Smith, Olympia, for Herrett Trucking Co., Inc., Pacific Highway Transport, Inc., Inland Motor Freight, Inc., Coast Lee & Eastes, Inc., Black Ball Freight Service, Inc. and Ralph, Carl A. and Clinton D. Pozzi, d/b/a Pozzi Bros. Transp. Co.
Norman Sutherland, Portland, Or., for Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, Inc.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal upon the ground that it was not timely taken.
On December 27, 1960, the superior court for Thurston county entered judgments remanding orders of the Washington Public Service Commission. On January 24, 1961, twenty-eight days after the entry of the judgments, the Washington Public Service Commission and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company filed notices of appeal.
The sole question presented herein is whether the notices of appeal were timely.
RCW 81.04.190 requires that an appeal to the supreme court involving Public Service Commission proceedings shall be filed within twenty days after entry of the trial court's judgment. If this provision is still valid, the appeals were taken too late.
The appellants contend that RCW 34.04.140, of the Administrative Procedure Act, repealed RCW 81.04.190 by implication. If it does then the appeals were timely because the Administrative Procedure Act provides for the taking of appeals in civil cases under Rule on Appeal 33, RCW Vol. O. That rule allows thirty days after entry of judgment for the taking of an appeal.
The Administrative Procedure Act was enacted in 1959. It is a general statute applicable to all state agencies. It does not, however, specifically repeal RCW 81.04.190 by number. It uses a blanket phrase: 'All acts or parts of acts which are inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter are hereby repealed, * * *' RCW 34.04.910.
A statute may be repealed by implication. State v. Becker, 39 Wash.2d 94, 234 P.2d 897. Ordinarily, a general statute does not repeal an earlier special statute by implication. State ex rel. Sherman v. Benson, 111 Wash. 124, 189 P. 1000. However, there is no rule which prohibits the repeal by implication of a special statute by a general one. The question is always one of legislative intent. The earlier special statute must yield to the later general statute where there is a manifest legislative intent that the general statute shall have universal application. State ex rel. Department of Public Service v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 200 Wash. 663, 94 P.2d 502; State v. Becker, supra; Abel v. Diking & Drainage Improvement District No. 4, 19 Wash.2d 356, 142 P.2d 1017, 1020. The rule was well expressed in Abel v. Diking & Drainage Improvement District No. 4, supra, in which we said:
'Repeals by implication are ordinarily not favored in law, and a later act will not operate to repeal an earlier act except in such instances where the later act covers the entire subject matter of the earlier legislation, is complete in itself, and is evidently intended to supersede the prior legislation on the subject, or unless the two acts are so clearly inconsistent with, and repugnant to, each other that they cannot, by a fair and reasonable construction, be reconciled and both given effect. * * *'
This court has already ruled, in State ex rel. Department of Public Service v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., supra, that what is now RCW 81.04.190 is to be treated as a special statute even though it is part of a general statute, the Public Service Commission Act of 1911, now RCW 81. The Administrative Procedure Act, RCW 34,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People's Organization for Washington Energy Resources v. Washington Utilities and Transp. Com'n
...390 U.S. 747, 791-92, 88 S.Ct. 1344, 1372-73, 20 L.Ed.2d 312 (1968); RCW 34.04.130(6).65 See Herrett Trucking Co. v. State Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 58 Wash.2d 542, 543-45, 364 P.2d 505 (1961).66 At all pertinent times herein, RCW 80.28.010 read as follows:"Duties as to rates, services, and facili......
-
Edwards v. St. Louis County
...494, 21 N.Y.S.2d 462; People ex rel. v. Board of Com'rs of Cook County, 345 Ill. 172, 177 N.E. 705; Herrett Trucking Co. et al. v. Washington Pub. Serv. Com'n, 58 Wash.2d 542, 364 P.2d 505; Olsen v. Gee et al., 94 R.I. 433, 181 A.2d 442; Connor v. State, 275 Ala. 230, 153 So.2d 787; Union C......
-
U.S. Oil & Refining Co. v. State Dept. of Ecology
...1363 (1975). Ordinarily, a general statute does not repeal an earlier special statute by implication. Herrett Trucking Co. v. State Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 58 Wash.2d 542, 364 P.2d 505 (1961). However, an implied repeal will be found (1) the later act covers the entire subject matter of the earl......
-
Paulson v. Pierce County
...an earlier special statute by implication. U.S. Oil & Ref. Co. v. Department of Ecology, supra; Herrett Trucking Co. v. Washington Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 58 Wash.2d 542, 543, 364 P.2d 505 (1961). An implied repeal will only be found where: (1) the later act covers the entire subject matter of t......
-
A New Approach to Statutory Interpretation in Washington
...85 Wash. 2d 883, 540 P.2d 1363 (1975) (implied repeals are disfavored); Herrett Trucking Co. v. State Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 58 Wash. 2d 542, 364 P.2d 505 (1961). But see Walton v. Absher Const. Co., Inc., 101 Wash. 2d 238, 242, 676 P.2d 1002, 1004 (1984) ("However, an implied repeal will be fo......