Lawry v. Board of Snohomish County Com'rs

• Decision Date: 26 July 1895
• Citation: 12 Wash. 446,41 P. 190
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: LAWRY v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF SNOHOMISH CO. ET AL.

41 P. 190

12 Wash. 446

LAWRY v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF SNOHOMISH CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 26, 1895

Appeal from superior court, Snohomish county; R. A. Ballinger Judge.

Appeal by Charles L. Lawry from the order of the board of county commissioners of Snohomish county and others, directing the removal of the county seat. Affirmed.

Sapp &amp Lysons and S. H. Piles, for appellant.

P. C Sullivan and Francis H. Brownell, for respondents.

ANDERS J.

As stated in the brief of appellant, the only question for discussion and determination in this case is, will an appeal lie from a decision or order of the board of county commissioners with respect to the removal of the county seat? The appellant is a resident and taxpayer of Snohomish county, and, as such, undertook to prosecute an appeal from an order of the board of county commissioners of that county declaring the result of an election to remove the county seat, and from an order requiring the removal of the county offices to the place designated by the board. The superior court dismissed the appeal, on motion of the defendants, on the ground that the resolution and order complained of were not appealable. In so doing the appellant contends the court erred. He insists that he had an unquestionable right to appeal, under the act of March 11 1893 (Laws 1893, p. 291), which provides that "any person may appeal from any decision or order of the county commissioners to the superior court of the proper county." This language is very broad and general; and, if it must be literally construed, his contention must necessarily prevail. But we do not think it should be so construed. If any person may appeal from any decision or order, every person may appeal, and we think there must be a limit somewhere. In reference to this provision, it was said by this court, in Morath v. Gorham, 11 Wash. 577, 40 P. 129, that: "A literal construction of this part of our statute would compel us to hold that any man or woman in the county or state, or elsewhere, may appeal, *** regardless of his or her relation to the matter in controversy; and we do not think the legislature intended, for a moment, to confer such an unlimited and universal right of appeal. It is a generally understood proposition of law, and presumably within the knowledge of the legislature when they enacted this section, that no one but a party to an action or proceeding can prosecute an appeal from a judgment or decision therein. Haynes, New Trials & App. c. 31. And we must presume that, when the legislature said 'any person may appeal,' they meant any person who has properly presented a matter before the board for their determination, and who is dissatisfied with...