Shaw Supply Co., Inc. v. King County
| Decision Date | 10 August 1932 |
| Docket Number | 23790. |
| Citation | 169 Wash. 175,13 P.2d 472 |
| Parties | SHAW SUPPLY CO., Inc., v. KING COUNTY. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Republished with corrections in 20 P.2d 8.
Department 2.
Action by the Shaw Supply Company, Inc., against King County. From a judgment dismissing the action, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Rem.Comp.Stat § 4077, provides that all claims for damages against any county must be presented Before the county commissioners of such county and filed with the clerk thereof within sixty days after the time when such claim for damages accrued. No action shall be maintained for any claim for damages until the same has been presented to the board of county commissioners and sixty days have elapsed after such presentation.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Howard M. Findley, judge.
Hayden, Merritt, Summers & Bucey, of Seattle, for appellant.
Robert M. Burgunder, Arthur M. Hare, and David J. Williams, all of Seattle, for respondent.
This action was brought to recover from King county the reasonable value of certain supplies or equipment sold and delivered by the plaintiff for use in the Harborview Hospital, located in the city of Seattle. To the complaint, a demurrer was interposed on the ground that no claim had been presented to the board of county commissioners, and this demurrer was sustained. The plaintiff elected to stand upon its complaint and refused to plead further. Judgment was entered dismissing the action, from which it appeals.
The appellant, Shaw Supply Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of this state, with its principal place of business in the city of Seattle. During the year 1931, and on or about, respectively, the dates of April 13th and May 14th, it sold and delivered, for use in the hospital, the items of personal property mentioned in the complaint, which were of the aggregate value of $382.50. The items not having been paid for, the appellant presented a claim therefor to the board of trustees of the Harborview Hospital, but did not present a claim to the board of county commissioners.
The question presented upon this appeal is whether the presentation of a claim to the board of county commissioners is a condition precedent to the right to maintain the action. If it is, the demurrer was properly sustained; and, on the other hand, if presentation of a claim to the board of trustees of the hospital was a sufficient compliance with the statute, the demurrer was improperly sustained.
Section 4056, Rem.Comp.Stat., in part, provides that the boards of county commissioners in the various counties of this state are authorized and required and * * * " Section 4077 provides: * * * "
It has been the uniform holding of this court that all claims against the county, other than those specially excepted, such as cost bills, fees of the official reporter, and the expenses of a judge called to hold court in a county other than his election, must be presented to the board of county commissioners for allowance or rejection Before an action can be maintained thereon. A large number of the cases supporting this view are assembled in the case of Old National Bank v. Lewis County, 137 Wash. 436, 242 P.961, and need not be repeated here. As to what the rule may be as to cities, we are not here concerned, because we are dealing purely with the county claim statute. From what has been said, it would appear that the presentation of a claim by the appellant to the board of county commissioners was a necessary, precedent condition to the right to maintain the action unless the claim statute, above mentioned, has been abrogated by subsequent legislation.
In 1925 (Laws of 1925, chapter 174, page 483) the Legislature passed an act, as appears by its title, providing for the establishment, maintenance and operation of hospitals for the care of persons suffering from general diseases, by counties and counties and cities. In the body of this act there was covered largely the matter of acquiring a site for a hospital, construction of the building, and the raising of sufficient money to cover the cost thereof.
In 1931 (Laws of 1931, chapter 139, page 423) the Legislature passed an act which, as indicated by its title, relates to and regulates the maintenance and operation of hospitals for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caron v. Grays Harbor County
...Queen City Construction Co., 175 Wash. 681, 27 P.2d 1066; Boitano v. Snohomish County, 11 Wash.2d 664, 120 P.2d 490. As stated in the Shaw Supply Company case Wash. 175, 13 P.2d 474], supra: 'The statute requiring claims to be presented to that board declares a rule of policy, and the court......
-
Lewis v. City of Mercer Island
...v. Spokane, 63 Wash.2d 305, 387 P.2d 67 (1963); Caron v. Grays Harbor Cty, 18 Wash.2d 397, 139 P.2d 626 (1943); Shaw Supply Co. v. King Cty, 169 Wash. 175, 13 P.2d 472 (1932).8 83 Wash.2d 599, 521 P.2d 725 (1974).9 85 Wash.2d 810, 539 P.2d 845 (1975). See also, Jenkins v. State, 85 Wash.2d ......
-
Nelson v. Dunkin
...maintenance of an action for damages against a county. Old Nat. Bank v. Lewis County, 137 Wash. 436, 242 P. 961; Shaw Supply Co. v. King County, 169 Wash. 175, 13 P.2d 472; on rehearing, 172 Wash. 137, 20 P.2d 8; Holmquist v. Queen City Const. Co., 175 Wash. 681, 27 P.2d 1066; Boitano v. Sn......
-
Cook v. Clallam County
...v. Queen City Const. Co., 175 Wash. 681, 27 P.2d 1066; Boitano v. Snohomish County, 11 Wash.2d 664, 120 P.2d 490. As stated in the Shaw Supply Co. case, [169 Wash. 175, 13 P.2d 474], "The statute requiring claims to be presented to that board declares a rule of policy, and the courts are no......