State ex rel. Taylor v. Lawler, 27912.
| Decision Date | 01 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | 27912. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. TAYLOR v. LAWLER et al. |
Department 1.
Original mandamus proceeding by the State of Washington, on the relation of Oscar Taylor, against James T. Lawler and others as Judges of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to compel each of the respondents to forthwith appoint an official reporter for his particular department. A demurrer was interposed by the respondents.
Demurrer sustained, and cause dismissed.
Little Burgunder & Smith, of Seattle, for relator.
B. Gray Warner and Lloyd M. Shorett, both of Seattle, for respondents.
Upon the application of the relator, this court, on December 30, 1939, issued an order directing the judges of the superior court of King county to appear Before it on January 19, 1940, and show cause why the court should not issue a peremptory writ of mandate, commanding each of them to forthwith appoint an official reporter for his particular department. The respondents appeared and demurred to the application, and, without waiving the demurrer, made answer. Briefs were filed by the parties, argument was heard on the return day, and the matter is now ready for decision.
By chapter 126, page 386, Laws of 1913, the legislature provided for the appointment of official court reporters in the state of Washington. Section 13 read as follows: 'This act shall not apply to any county having a population of two hundred thousand, or over.'
By chapter 66, page 133, Laws of 1919, that section was amended by substituting the words 'two hundred and eighty thousand' for 'two hundred thousand,' and section 9 was also amended. Section 1 was amended by chapter 42, page 147, Laws of 1921. The act, as thus amended, appears in Rem.Rev.Stat. as §§ 42-1 to 42-13, inclusive.
By chapter 178 p. 545, Laws of 1939, the legislature repealed section 13. Thus, a five-page act, drafted and designed to meet the specific needs of small counties, having in most cases but one or two superior court judges, was extended, without any substantial change in its provisions, to King county which has fifteen judges, among whom the judicial work is so divided and specialized that several have little or no need of a stenographer. The King county judges, acting as a body, appointed eight regular reporters and three protem. reporters. Subsequently, still acting jointly, they appointed fifteen reporters, all of whom, it appears, work only part time.
It is the contention of the relator that chapter 126, Laws of 1913, as amended, requires the respondents, and each of them, to appoint 'an official court reporter for his particular department,' and the prayer is that this court issue a peremptory writ of mandate commanding each of them to do so.
We do not find it necessary to construe the act or enter into a discussion of the merits, for, in our opinion, the respondents have successfully challenged the relator's capacity to maintain the action. In his application, the relator alleged that he is a resident of Seattle, King county, Washington, an elector and taxpayer therein, and a skilled and qualified court reporter. Later, he set up, by amendment, that one of the respondent judges has promised to appoint him, if it is decided, as he contends, that the appointments can only lawfully be made by the judges individually.
The jurisdiction given to this court by the state constitution in Article IV, section 4, to issue writs o...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colvin v. Inslee
...law does not require a government official to take a specific action, neither can a writ of mandamus. See State ex rel. Taylor v. Lawler , 2 Wash.2d 488, 490, 98 P.2d 658 (1940) ("The jurisdiction given to this court by the state constitution in Art. IV, § 4, to issue writs of mandamus to s......
-
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 21853-8-III.
...879 P.2d 920. Mandamus does not authorize a court "to assume general control or direction of official acts." State ex rel. Taylor v. Lawler, 2 Wash.2d 488, 490, 98 P.2d 658 (1940); see also Walker, 124 Wash.2d at 407, 879 P.2d 920. "Instead, the remedy of mandamus contemplates the necessity......
-
Walker v. Munro
...and enforcing Initiative 601". Petition, at 18. Writs are not directed at a general course of conduct. In State ex rel. Taylor v. Lawler, 2 Wash.2d 488, 490, 98 P.2d 658 (1940), we The jurisdiction given to this court by the state constitution in Art. IV, § 4, to issue writs of mandamus to ......
-
Freeman v. Gregoire
...to assume general control or direction of official acts. Walker, 124 Wash.2d at 407, 879 P.2d 920 (citing State ex rel. Taylor v. Lawler, 2 Wash.2d 488, 490, 98 P.2d 658 (1940)). DOT has statutory authority to discretionarily manage highway property. Furthermore, as explained above, DOT has......