State v. Clausen

• Decision Date: 20 April 1923
• Docket Number: 17826.
• Citation: 214 P. 635,124 Wash. 389
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. OTTESEN v. CLAUSEN, State Auditor, et al.

214 P. 635

124 Wash. 389

STATE ex rel. OTTESEN v. CLAUSEN, State Auditor, et al.

No. 17826.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 20, 1923

Department 1.

Original proceeding in mandamus by the State of Washington, on the relation of John Ottesen, against C. W. Clausen, as State Auditor, and others, to compel payment of balance alleged to be due for building of highway. Superior court directed to take evidence and to make return.

Preston Thorgrimson & Turner, of Seattle, for relator.

Lindsay L. Thompson and C. G. Jeffers, both of Olympia, for respondents.

MITCHELL J.

This is an original proceeding in mandamus to compel payment of the balance alleged to be due for the building of a section of a permanent highway in Kitsap county pursuant to section 6773 et seq., Rem. Comp. Stat. The work was done under a contract duly entered into. In the application it is alleged that the contract has been fully performed, and that the work has been accepted and approved by the county engineer and the county commissioners, but that the director of public works and the supervisor of highways arbitrarily refuse to certify to the state auditor that the work has been completed in accordance with the terms of the contract; hence this action to compel certification and issuance of a proper state warrant.

In response to an alternative writ the respondents have answered, denying many of the material allegations of the complaint and affirmatively alleging, in effect, that the work in material respects has not been completed according to the terms of the contract and in the manner required by the law, for which reason certificates necessary to authorize the issuance of a state warrant have been refused.

The relator relies on the cases of State ex rel. Shores v Ross, 44 Wash. 246, 87 P. 262, and State ex rel Wash. Pav. Co. v. Clausen, 90 Wash. 450, 156 P. 554, L R. A. 1917A, 436, as sustaining the procedure by way of original application in this court. Without discussing those cases, we are of the opinion they are authority for relator's contention.

We are induced, however, to observe that the issues presented are issues of fact. The case does not involve the validity of any statute, nor in its character does it embrace any great public right. Nor does the exercise of original jurisdiction of the case in this court appear to be necessary or indispensable to prevent a failure of justice. While it is true that article 4, § 4, of the state Constitution, and its statutory duplicate, section 1, Rem. Comp. Stat., confer original jurisdiction on this court in mandamus to all state officers, they do not provide that such jurisdiction shall be exclusive. Article 4, § 6, of the state Constitution, and its statutory duplicate, section 15, Rem. Comp. Stat. confer general original jurisdiction on the superior court, and out of an abundance of foresight and care provide for original jurisdiction in all cases and of all proceedings in which jurisdiction shall not have been by law vested exclusively in some other court. Thus the superior court is established as the trial court of this state. It has the facilities for the trial of cases that lead to conclusions and judgments in those courts which are intended to be and as a matter of fact are of great benefit to the Supreme Court in all cas...