King County v. Port of Seattle, 31456.

• Decision Date: 02 November 1950
• Docket Number: 31456.
• Citation: 223 P.2d 834,37 Wn.2d 338
• Parties: KING COUNTY, v. PORT OF SEATTLE et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

223 P.2d 834

37 Wn.2d 338

KING COUNTY, v. PORT OF SEATTLE et al.

No. 31456.

Supreme Court of Washington.

November 2, 1950

Department 1.

Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., Seattle (Allen, Hilen, Froude & DeGarmo, and Stuart G. Oles, all of Seattle, of counsel), for appellant.

Bogle Bogle & Gates, and Frank L. Mechem, Tom M. Alderson, and Max Kaminoff, all of Seattle, for Port of Seattle.

Little LeSourd, Palmer & Scott, of Seattle, for Yellow Cab Co.

DONWORTH, Justice.

King county instituted this action seeking (1) to enjoin the defendant The Yellow Cab Company, a partnership, from picking up passengers at the Seattle-Tacoma airport without a King county license to do so; (2) to enjoin the defendant Port of Seattle, a municipal corporation, from granting certain franchises and privileges to the partnership known as The Yellow Cab Company; (3) to enjoin the Port of Seattle from interfering with the operation of county-licensed cabs at the airport; and (4) to obtain a declaratory judgment with respect to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the 'Revised Airports Act' Rem.Supp.1945, § 2722-30 et seq.

The defendants answered separately denying all of the materal allegations of the complaint and affirmatively alleged as a defense that the Port of Seattle was empowered by law to perform the acts objected to in the complaint and that it was necessary for the Port of Seattle to enter into a contract with The Yellow Cab Company in order to provide the patrons of the airport with satisfactory ground transportation service. The answer of The Yellow Cab Company in addition asserted that King county was not the proper party to bring the action and further challenged the power of King county to license the operation of taxicabs. By cross-complaint The Yellow Cab Company asked for a writ of mandamus to require the King county license director (who was named as cross-defendant) to issue licenses to The Yellow Cab Company in the event that the trial court should hold that the plaintiff had validly undertaken the licensing of taxicabs.

Before trial the court overruled plaintiff's demurrers to certain of defendants' affirmative defenses. The cause came on duly for trial Before the court, without a jury. The trial consumed five days and the evidence covered a wide range and included many issues which we deem it unnecessary to consider in view of the conclusion we have reached on the principal questions involved. After the trial was concluded the court rendered an oral decision in favor of the defendants. Thereafter, having denied plaintiff's motions for judgment notwithstanding the oral decision or alternatively for a new trial, the court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and a decree dismissing the action. Plaintiff has appealed from the decree of dismissal.

Respondent partnership will be referred to as 'Yellow Cab' and respondent Port of Seattle as the 'Port'. King county will be designated as 'the county' or appellant.

The Seattle-Tacoma airport is located within the physical boundaries of King county and outside the boundaries of the city of Seattle. The airport is owned and operated by the Port of Seattle, a municipal corporation, which has been given the express statutory authority to acquire, maintain and operate airports either within or without the boundaries of the county in which the port district is situated. Rem.Supp.1945, § 2722-30 et seq. All roads within the boundaries of the airport are constructed and maintained with port funds.

Prior to July 9, 1949, the airport had a temporary passenger terminal while awaiting the completion of a permanent administration building which was opened on that date. During this period taxi service was handled by numerous cab companies, including those cabs licensed by King county. Testimony produced on behalf of respondent Yellow Cab showed that this sort of service was quite unsatisfactory. Taxicabs were operating contrary to the regulations which had been made by the Port with respect to the parking of cabs and the soliciting of passengers. Numerous complaints were received by the airport manager as to discourteous treatment of passengers by drivers, improper maintenance or equipment and overcharges.

When the permanent administration building was opened the airport manager proposed to the port commissioners that the Port enter into a temporary agreement with a responsible company to furnish twenty-four hour taxicab service at the airport. The commissioners approved this suggestion and several taxicab companies were consulted as to the possibility of their providing the type of service desired. Yellow Cab was the only operator to submit a written offer to the Port.

After considering this offer the Port wrote to Yellow Cab as follows:

'This is to notify you that your proposal to furnished taxi cab service at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, as outlined in your letter of July 7th and modified by verbal agreements in conference since that time, has been accepted by the Port Commission.

'It is understood that you will be provided with ten spaces for parking your vehicles in the area known as the South parking lot, in a location assigned to you by the airport manager for which you will pay the Port of Seattle a monthly fee of $50 or the current price charged by the concessionaire in the North parking lot, which ever is greater. This amount is to be paid monthly in advance.

'It is also agreed that you will pay to the Port of Seattle an amount equal to 10% of the gross revenue derived from business originating at the Airport. This amount to be paid not later than the 15th of the month following the month in which the revenue is derived.

'It is also agreed that you will provide a starter or representative, without cost to the Port of Seattle, to be stationed at the Airport ramp loading and unloading vehicles, It is also agreed that you will be permitted to have one cab parked on the ramp for immediate use when necessary. It is further agreed that you will have use of the starter office without charge and be permitted to install necessary communications therein.

'This agreement is not for any definite period of time but on a month to month basis. Please sign and return one copy of this agreement, retaining the other copy for your files.'

Yellow Cab accepted this counter proposal and the two respondents have carried out the terms of their agreement continuously since July, 1949.

We quote the following portions of the findings made by the trial court which form the basis of the present controversy:

'III

'That The Yellow Cab Company is licensed by the City of Seattle to operate taxicabs and does so operate taxicabs, but that The Yellow Cab Company is not licensed by King County to operate taxicabs.

'IV

'That The Yellow Cab Company picks up passengers at the Seattle-Tacoma Airport; that it maintains a starter who is stationed in an office in the administration building which office is near the ramp in front of the administration building; that it rents from the Port of Seattle ten parking spaces and has the exclusive use of said spaces; that it does not solicit passengers at the airport, but that the starter maintained by it does call cabs to the ramp when passengers desire same; and that The Yellow Cab Company makes a charge to its patrons for transportation to their destinations.

'V

'That taxicab drivers licensed by King County are permitted the use of the ramp or driveway in front of the administration building and are allowed to deliver passengers thereon and are permitted to call for and pick up any passenger who so desires and makes his own arrangements with any taxicab driver, including taxicab drivers licensed by King County; that cabs licensed by King County are permitted to use the parking facilities provided by the Port of Seattle that have been assigned to the use of the general public on the same terms and conditions applicable to the general public; that licensed King County cab drivers have not rented exclusive parking spaces and that they are not permitted to solicit passengers on the premises.

'VI

'That the license resolution of King County specifies the rates to be charged for taxicab passengers; that the rates charged by defendant The Yellow Cab Company were at the time of the bringing of this action in excess of the rates provided by the King County license resolution, but that on and after September, 1949, at which time the City of Seattle changed the city license rates, the defendant The Yellow Cab Company made charges and is ow charging rates that are lower than the rates prescribed by the King County resolution for the fares charged passengers traveling from the Seattle-Tacoma Airport to a central point in downtown Seattle.

'VII

'That the Port of Seattle does not claim the power to enact penal resolutions or ordinances; that no agent, officer or employee of the defendant Port of Seattle has ever made any arrests at the Seattle-Tacoma Airport for the violation of any of the rules or regulations of the Port of Seattle, but that three of the guides of the Port of Seattle have been deputized by the Sheriff of King County for the purpose of acting as deputy sheriffs for the enforcement of violations of state law at the Seattle-Tacoma Airport.

'VIII

'That on September 21, 1949 the defendant, The Yellow Cab Company applied to the Additional Cross-Defendant, Frank Coyle, License Director of King County, Washington, by letter for operators' licenses for ten taxicabs for use in transporting passengers from the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. On October 6, 1949 the said Frank Coyle replied that no licenses were available and at no time thereafter has he issued or offered to issue licenses for said cabs in...