State v. Fleming
| Decision Date | 15 December 1915 |
| Docket Number | 12657. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. MAULSBY v. FLEMING et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Ralph C. Bell, Judge.
Proceeding by the State, on the relation of A. R. Maulsby, against T. C Fleming and others. From a judgment for relator, respondents appeal. Affirmed.
O. T Webb, of Everett, for appellants.
Cooley & Horan and R. Mulvihill, all of Everett, and W. H. Heaton of Bellingham, for respondent.
The constitutionality of chapter 55, Laws of 1913, p. 165, is the only question presented in this case. On a demurrer to the petition of the relator the trial court held this act void. This appeal followed.
The title of the act is as follows:
'An act relating to the duties and functions of coroners and justices of the peace; abolishing the office of county coroner in certain counties, and repealing all acts in conflict herewith.'
In substance, the act authorizes the prosecuting attorneys and justices of the peace residing at the county seats of all counties, except counties of the first class, to assume the duties which ordinarily are imposed upon coroners. The act then, at section 9, provides as follows:
'The office of county coroner is hereby abolished as to all counties of this state except counties of the first class, and none of the provisions of this act shall apply to or in counties of the first class.'
The Constitition, at section 4, art. 11, provides as follows:
'The Legislature shall establish a system of county government, which shall be uniform throughout the state. * * *'
Section 5 of the same article provides:
* * *'
It is apparent from the section last quoted that the Legislature is authorized to classify counties by population for the purpose of regulating the compensation of such officers. This is plain. Section 4 of the Constitution, above quoted, provides, that the Legislature shall establish a system of county government which shall be uniform throughout the state. The Legislature has, in accordance with these provisions, classified counties for the purpose of regulating the compensation of county officers. Rem. & Bal. Code, § 4031. It seems too plain to admit of serious dispute that a system of county government which permits certain officers in one county which are not permitted in another county is not a uniform system. If the Legislature may abolish coroners in counties of all classes except the first, it may abolish such officers in any one class and retain them in another. It may, by the same rule, require certain officers in one county, and entirely different officers with entirely different duties in another. It cannot be reasonably contended that this would be a uniform system. If this law is a valid exercise of legislation, then counties of the first class are provided with an officer known as a coroner, with certain defined duties, while all other classes of counties have no such officer. The duties which usually fall upon such officer are distributed to prosecuting attorneys and certain justices of the peace, thereby imposing duties upon justices of the peace and upon prosecuting attorneys in all counties except the first class, which duties are not imposed upon justices of the peace and prosecuting attorneys in counties of the first class. It is plain that this is not a uniform system. We have no doubt that the Legislature has the power to entirely abolish the office of coroner in all counties of the state, and to impose the duties of that office upon some other officer. But the Legislature certainly has no right, under the constitutional provision quoted, to provide for officers in counties of the first class which are not provided for in other counties. In order that the system may be the same, the officers must be the same; and their duties must be the same; otherwise the system is different.
In Singleton v. Eureka County, 22 Nev. 91, 35 P. 833, the Supreme Court of Nevada, in construing provisions of the Constitution of that state, which are the same as ours, held that an act authorizing a sheriff of a certain county to appoint a night watchman at a fixed salary to be paid by the county was invalid, and in the concurring opinion by Judge Bigelow he said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mount Spokane Skiing Corp. v. Spokane County
...and, thus, should be held to be a violation of the uniformity provisions of the state constitution. See, e.g., State ex rel. Maulsby v. Fleming, 88 Wash. 583, 153 P. 347 (1915). RCW 35.21.730 is presumed constitutional and Spokane Skiing has the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable do......
-
State ex rel. Scofield v. Easterday
...transfer their functions to other officers of the county. But, as I read the amendment in the light of this court's decision in State ex rel. Maulsby v. Fleming, I do not think Legislature can continue the offices of county commissioner and engineer in first-class counties and transfer from......
-
Spokane Cnty. v. State
...district-only elections for noncharter counties of a certain size.¶ 3 In reaching this result, we overrule State ex rel. Maulsby v. Fleming , 88 Wash. 583, 153 P. 347 (1915), a case that struck down a legislative scheme that removed the county coroner office in a certain class of counties. ......
-
State v. Schragg
... ... he is, in consequence, eligible to hold any existing county ... office ... But it ... is argued that this construction of the statute renders it ... unconstitutional under our holding in the case of State ... ex rel. Maulsby v. Fleming, 88 Wash. 583, 153 P. 347, in ... that it destroys the uniformity of county government. The ... argument is that the constitutional amendment above quoted is ... not sufficiently broad to meet the objection of the cited ... case. But this question we need not determine. If ... ...