State v. Erickson

• Decision Date: 17 January 1912
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CURTISS v. ERICKSON et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

120 P. 104

66 Wash. 639

STATE ex rel. CURTISS v. ERICKSON et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 17, 1912

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; John R Mitchell, Judge.

Action by the State, on the relation of Charles P. Curtiss, against C.J. Erickson and another, for contempt of court. From a judgment adjudging defendants guilty, they appeal. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Shank &amp Smith, for appellants.

Thomas A. Meade and P. C. Sullivan, for respondent.

CHADWICK J.

C. J Erickson, a general contractor, had the contract for excavating a part of the Lake Washington Canal. Carlson was a foreman who had charge of a part of the work. On October 22, 1910, the case of William L. Bilger et al. v. State of Washington and C.J. Erickson, 116 P. 19, was pending in the superior court of Thurston county, and upon that day, the matter coming on for hearing upon the application of the plaintiffs for an order enjoining defendants from removing the embankment between the excavated portion of the canal and Lake Washington, the court, being satisfied that such removal might tend to lower the waters of the lake to the detriment and damage of the plaintiffs, announced that a restraining order would issue. On October 28th a formal order reciting the presence of the parties and the oral announcement of the court, made on October 22d, that it would grant unto plaintiffs the relief prayed for, was entered. In this order we find the following: 'And it having this day been brought to the attention of the court that since the announcement of the decision of this court in this cause, and on or about 4 o'clock p. m. of October 26, 1910, some person or persons, by the use of dynamite or other explosive, tore the bottom of the ditch of excavation so as to lower the bottom thereof below the surface of the waters of said Lake Washington, and thereby turn the waters of said lake into the ditch or canal, and that such condition will probably result in inflicting damage upon the plaintiffs sought to be prevented by the decree in this cause, and it having been suggested to the court that such act was committed by some of the defendants other than state of Washington and county of King, their servants, agents, employés or representatives. Now, therefore,' etc. Thereafter these appellants were brought before the court under a rule to show cause why they should not be punished for disobedience of the order of the court.

A review of the evidence offered in support of the case of the appellants would serve no purpose. It is enough to say that appellant Erickson disclaims all responsibility, saying that the contumacious act was done contrary to his advice and without his knowledge, and that it was done under the direction of the United States engineers who had charge of the work for the government, and appellant Carlson claims to have acted under the direction of the same engineers, and further that he had no knowledge of the court's order. Erickson, as well as his agents and servants, was bound to take notice of the announcement made by the court on October 22d, and, having the work in charge Erickson is to be held to a strict accountability, not only to keep his own conduct within bounds, but to see to it that his servants and agents did not violate any order of the court. If the rule were otherwise, it would be possible, as it may have been in this...