Spooner v. City of Seattle
| Decision Date | 18 May 1893 |
| Citation | 33 P. 963,6 Wash. 370 |
| Parties | SPOONER v. CITY OF SEATTLE ET AL. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, King county; I. J. Lichtenberg, Judge.
Petition by E. J. Spooner against the city of Seattle and others for a writ of certiorari. After the writ had been granted respondents moved to quash the same. The motion was granted and petitioner appeals. Affirmed.
Tustin Gearin & Crews, for appellant.
Geo Donworth and Jas. B. Howe, for respondents.
The record in this case shows that the superior court of King county, after having granted a writ of certiorari in favor of the appellant, and against the respondents, entertained a motion to quash the writ, which motion is permitted to be amended or supplemented by the allegation of additional grounds before the matter was finally disposed of. Upon the grounds thus presented, it quashed the writ. The motion to quash was substantially a demurrer to the petition. There seems to have been no logical reason why it should not have been entertained before the respondents had complied with its direction to certify a copy of the record. Such proceeding was clearly a proper one, upon every view of the system of pleading and practice in this state.
Two of the grounds urged upon the motion to quash, at least, were well taken-First. The petition was not filed until more than two years after the proceedings taken by the city to assess the property in question were completed. The writ of certiorari is in the nature of an appeal, and, while the statute does not fix the time within which the writ should be applied for, it should be applied for within a reasonable time after the act complained of has been done, and two years and upward was not a reasonable time. Second. In our opinion no writ of certiorari will lie in such a case as this. Wilson v. City of Seattle, 2 Wash. St. 543, 27 P. 474, is not in point. The proceedings on the part of the city consisted of certain steps taken to assess real estate for the improvement of a street under the special charter of the city of Seattle, enacted in 1886. By that charter the only method which the city had of collecting a street assessment was by foreclosure in a court of record. Whenever such a foreclosure is attempted by the city, the appellant will have full opportunity to defend against it. Under this state of the law, certiorari should not be resorted to in such a way as to make it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vance v. City of Seattle
...706, 237 P.2d 1024 (1951); State ex rel. Von Herberg v. Superior Court, 6 Wash.2d 615, 108 P.2d 826 (1940) (mandamus); Spooner v. Seattle, 6 Wash. 370, 33 P. 963 (1893). In State ex rel. Lowary v. Superior Court, 41 Wash. 450, 452, 83 P. 726, 727 (1906), the court entertained a tardy applic......
-
Pullman Co. v. State Board of Equalization
...which an appeal may be taken in appealable cases unless for good cause shown some other period be fixed. In the case of Spooner v. Seattle, 6 Wash. 370, 33 P. 963, it is said: "The writ of certiorari is in nature of an appeal, and, while the statute does not fix the time within which the wr......
-
Andrus v. Snohomish County
...559 (1967); State ex rel. L. L. Buchanan & Co. v. Washington Public Serv. Comm'n, 39 Wash.2d 706, 237 P.2d 1024 (1951); Spooner v. Seattle, 6 Wash. 370, 33 P. 963 (1893). RCW 7.16.330 gives the court issuing a writ of certiorari the power to make it returnable and hold a hearing thereon at ......
-
State v. Kuykendall, 19235.
...Works of the State of Washington. From a judgment quashing writ and dismissing proceeding, applicant appeals. Affirmed. Otto B. Rupp, of Seattle, Post, Russell & Higgins, of Spokane, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, of San Francisco, Cal. (W. V. Tanner, of Seattle, of counsel), for appellant. Pr......