Skidmore v. Clausen

• Decision Date: 27 July 1921
• Docket Number: 16612.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: SKIDMORE v. CLAUSEN, State Auditor.

199 P. 727

116 Wash. 403

SKIDMORE v. CLAUSEN, State Auditor.

No. 16612.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

July 27, 1921

Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; D. F. Wright, Judge.

Mandamus by Catherine S. Skidmore against C. W. Clausen, as State Auditor of the State of Washington. From a judgment dismissing the action after demurrer to the application was sustained and the petitioner refused to plead further petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

Bridges J., dissenting.

Philip Tworoger, of Seattle, for appellant.

Lindsay L. Thompson and Nat. U. Brown, both of Olympia, for respondent.

HOLCOMB J.

This action was begun in the superior court of the state of Washington for Thurston county by appellant in her own name seeking a writ of mandate directed against C. W. Clausen, as state auditor, to compel the issuance to her of a warrant in her favor in the sum of $360. Appellant is the widow of Francis M. Skidmore, who died November 28, 1920. Mr Skidmore, had he lived, would have been entitled to receive $360 from the state, under chapter 1, Laws of 1920, known as the 'Bonus Act,' or 'Soldiers' Additional Compensation Act,' for services performed in the army of the United States during the late war. A demurrer to the application was sustained by the lower court, and appellant, refusing to plead further, the action was dismissed. This appeal is from the order of dismissal.

In the lower court appellant sought recovery as the beneficiary under the terms of the act, and set forth in her affidavit that she was the dependent wife of the deceased soldier, and therefore entitled to the compensation that would have gone to him. Section 1, chapter 1, of the Laws of 1920, provides compensation for dependent widows of soldiers who were killed or died in the service. The deceased husband of appellant died some five months after his discharge. In this court appellant abandoned her claim as a dependent of the deceased soldier, and seeks relief as administratrix of the estate of her husband. This change was agreed to by the Attorney General.

As stated by appellant, the question is whether appellant is entitled to the relief demanded under an interpretation of the initiative and referendum amendments to the state Constitution. The provision of the initiative and referendum amendment affecting the same is:

'Any measure initiated by the people or referred to the people as herein provided shall take effect and become the law if it is approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon; provided, that the vote cast upon such question or measure shall be equal to one-third of the total vote cast at such election and not otherwise. Such measure shall be in operation on and after the thirtieth day after the election at which it is approved.' (Italics ours.)

Appellant contends that the Bonus Law went into effect on November 2, 1920, the date on which the people of the state by their referendum approved it; that its operation was technically to commence on December 2, 1920, but that it actually went into effect on the date of its approval by the people.

The deceased husband died November 28, 1920, or four days before the act would become effective under the above-quoted amendment.

Although this is a case appealing to us as a very meritorious one, we are forced to the conclusion that the contentions of appellant are untenable. In Gootstein v. Lister, 88 Wash. 462, 153 P. 595, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1008, in construing the effect of the initiative and referendum amendment to the...