State v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 30 December 1914
• Docket Number: 12241.
• Citation: 145 P. 61,83 Wash. 91
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. GILMUR v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al.

145 P. 61

83 Wash. 91

STATE ex rel. GILMUR v. CITY OF SEATTLE et al.

No. 12241.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 30, 1914

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; R. B. Albertson Judge.

Mandamus by the State, on relation of C. E. Gilmur, against the City of Seattle and others. Judgment for defendants, and relator appeals. Reversed.

Preston & Thorgrimson, of Seattle, for appellant.

Jas. E Bradford and Wm. B. Allison, both of Seattle, for respondents.

MORRIS, J.

Subsequently to our decision in Gilmur v. Seattle, 69 Wash. 289 124 P. 919, in which a decree enjoining Gilmur's removal from the office of foreman of outside construction in the lighting department of the city of Seattle was sustained, and with the evident purpose of circumventing the effect of that decision, the city passed an ordinance abolishing the position, and at the same time passed another ordinance re-creating the same position; the latter ordinance to become effective immediately upon the going into effect of the ordinance abolishing the position. Gilmur thereupon commenced a second proceeding to prevent his removal, and the city was again enjoined from removing him from office. In furtherance of its evident design, the city, through its legislative department, again abolished the position filled by Gilmur and on September 15, 1912, the day such last ordinance went into effect, Gilmur was notified that his services were no longer required. Gilmur subsequently sued out this writ of mandamus, seeking reinstatement and for a direction to the proper officials of the city to deliver to him warrants upon the general fund of the city for the amount of his salary up to the time of his reinstatement. The judgment of the lower court was adverse to Gilmur, and, it having so announced, the city again indicated the motive actuating it in this matter by passing another ordinance re-creating the position that had been occupied by Gilmur. Nothing more need be said as to what the city was seeking to accomplish in all this maneuvering. It is too apparent to require discussion that for some reason the purpose was to abolish, not the position but the incumbent. The position was created and filled under civil service regulation, and, as evidencing that it sought to get rid of the man but retain the office, it is shown that during all this time the duties of the office remained and in order to properly carry on the work of the department, it was necessary for the head of the department to assign to this work men in the different classifications of the civil service but who, under the civil service ...