State v. City of Spokane
| Decision Date | 01 August 1911 |
| Citation | 116 P. 878,64 Wash. 388 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. GRIMMER v. CITY OF SPOKANE et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; J. D. Hinkle Judge.
Proceedings by the State, on the relation of J. M. Grimmer, against the City of Spokane and others. From a judgment for relator defendants appeal. Affirmed.
F. B Morrill, Horace Kimball, and Burcham & Blair, for appellants.
John M. Gleason and Joseph F. Morton, for respondent.
The relator commenced this action in the superior court for Spokane county to prohibit the defendants from revoking a permit theretofore granted to him by the board of public works of the city of Spokane to build a stable within the city limits. A trial resulted in a judgment in favor of the relator, and a writ of prohibition was issued against the defendants accordingly, from which they have appealed to this court.
An ordinance of the city relating to the granting of permits to build stables in the city provides, among other things, as follows: 'Whenever any person shall apply for a permit to build, or to alter or convert any building into a stable, the application shall, in addition to other matters required to be stated in the application, state the number and kind of animals to be sheltered therein, and the plans and specifications shall show the number and location of water pipes for fire protection, and it shall be the duty upon the filing of such application, for the secretary of the board of public works to notify the health officer and the chief of the fire department, in writing, that such permit has to be applied for, stating the name of the applicant, the lot and block number, and the name of the addition or plat or other description of the land upon which the proposed building is to be erected or altered; and thereupon it shall be the duty of the secretary of the board of public works to set a date for hearing before the board of public works, upon said application, which shall not be less than two weeks nor more than four weeks from the date of the filing of such application; and to cause to be posted upon the premises described in such application, a notice of such hearing, giving the time and place thereof and the purpose for which such hearing shall be had.'
Under this ordinance the relator made written application for a permit as follows: By order of the board, the hearing upon this application was fixed for August 16, 1909, at 2:00 p. m. The health officer and chief of the fire department being duly notified that the permit had been applied for, both reported in favor of the granting of the permit. The board caused notice of the hearing of August 16th to be posted on the premises where it was proposed to erect the stable. This posting was done August 5th. The hearing was had before the board on August 16th, at 2:00 p. m., in pursuance of the notice and the order of the board fixing that time for hearing. At that hearing a number of persons appeared and protested against the granting of the permit. On September 1st the board granted the permit and notified the relator accordingly.
Thereupon the relator procured lumber and made arrangements for the construction of his stable, and he proceeded so far as to have lumber hauled upon the premises, when, on September 27th, he received from the board the following notice No grounds were then assigned for this action of the board. It has at no time been contended that the relator was in the least guilty of any fraud in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Board of County Com'rs of Talbot County
...a permit is sufficient. People [ex rel. Huntley Dairy Co.] v. Village of Oak Park, 268 Ill. 256, 109 N.E. 11; State ex rel. Grimmer v. City of Spokane, 64 Wash. 388, 116 P. 878.' For the reasons herein stated we are of opinion that the procedure followed the enabling legislation sufficientl......
-
Lindemann v. City of Kenosha
...92 N. W. 1116;Hinman v. Clarke, 121 App. Div. 105, 105 N. Y. S. 725, affirmed in 193 N. Y. 640, 86 N. E. 1125;State ex rel. Grimmer v. City of Spokane, 64 Wash. 388, 116 P. 878;Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 25 S. Ct. 18, 49 L. Ed. 169; 43 Cor. Jur. 349, the remedy, however, in such......
-
Gallagher v. Building Inspector City of Erie
...Co. v. Board of Street Commissioners of Boston, 242 Mass. 194, 196--197, 136 N.E. 245, 246; State ex rel. Grimmer v. (City of) Spokane, 64 Wash. 388, 394, 116 P. 878, 880.' Nothing further is required of the plaintiffs for their uninterrupted use of their property to which the registration ......
-
Buell v. City of Bremerton
...found that he did not vote. The official records of a public body may not be impeached in the absence of fraud. State ex rel. Grimmer v. Spokane, 64 Wash. 388, 116 P. 878 (1911). Even if Mr. Beard, in his role as chairman, did not vote, he was found by the court to have a possibility of int......