State v. Gage
Decision Date | 31 May 1919 |
Docket Number | 15242. |
Citation | 107 Wash. 282,181 P. 855 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. DYSART et al. v. GAGE, County Auditor. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County; W. A. Reynolds, Judge.
Petition for mandamus by the State, on the relation of George Dysart and others, against Bertha S. Gage, as Auditor of Lewis County, etc. Judgment for relators, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Herman Allen, of Chehalis, and J. H. Jahnke, of Centralia, for appellant.
A. A Hull, of Chehalis, for respondents.
The relators ask for a writ of mandate to compel the auditor of Lewis county to issue warrants to them in compensation for legal services performed for school district No. 78, of Lewis county; these services having been rendered at the request of the directors of that district. School districts Nos. 35, 57 and 78, acting upon the advice of the prosecuting attorney of the county, attempted to form a consolidated district, as provided by law, and in pursuance of that advice held an election to vote upon that consolidation and attempted to bond the consolidated district, and, still in compliance with the advice of the prosecuting attorney, built a schoolhouse, which was situated in district No. 78, and incurred an indebtedness therefor of approximately $10,000. When the bonds had been voted upon, and the schoolhouse had been nearly completed, the officers of the consolidated district were advised that the bonds were illegal, and that the purported consolidated district had been illegally formed. Thereafter the directors of school district No. 78 consulted with the relators, and upon the advice of the prosecuting attorney employed the relators to protect the rights of the district and to straighten out its affairs. Pursuant to that employment the relators commenced actions, which resulted in the restraining of the officers of the purported consolidated district from any further functions, and rendered such further legal services as to result in the taking over of the schoolhouse by district No. 78, and validating the indebtedness of that district. Further legal services were rendered, which resulted in unraveling the tangle in which the district affairs had become involved. The directors of the school district approved of the bill rendered by the relators for their services, and requested the appellant, as auditor of Lewis county, to sign and register the warrants drawn in payment of such services. The appellant refused to comply with that request. This action having been commenced, the appellant demurred to the complaint, and, the demurrer having been overruled, brings this appeal.
The appellant asserts her refusal to sign and register the warrants to be based upon the fact that section 116, Rem. Code, provides:
'The prosecuting attorney of each county shall have authority and it shall be his duty, subject to the supervisory control and direction of the Attorney General, to appear for and represent the state and the county and all school districts in the county in which he is a prosecuting attorney, in all criminal and civil actions and proceedings in such county in which the state or such county or such school district is a party'
--and that under this section directors of school districts are not authorized to employ counsel, but must rely upon the services of the prosecuting attorney of the county, and claims that this case is not to be distinguished from the case of State ex rel. State Board of Medical Examiners v Clausen, 84 Wash. 279, 146 P. 630, where we held that the state board of medical examiners had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Taylor
...26 Cal. 112, 113; 18 C. J. 1312, sec. 39, par. 5; 7 C. J. S. 823, sec. 47; People v. Hanson, 290 Ill. 370, 125 N.E. 268; State v. Gage, 107 Wash. 282, 181 P. 855; State v. State Board of Equalization, 140 Wash. 249 P. 996; State v. Rocker, 130 Iowa 239, 106 N.W. 645; Hartgraves v. State, 5 ......
-
State v. State Bd. of Equalization, 20248.
... ... antagonistic to those of state officers, or where state ... officers may conflict among themselves, it is impossible and ... improper for the Attorney General to defend such state ... officers. This court, in State ex rel. Dysart v ... Gage, 107 Wash. 282, 181 P. 855, recognized that such ... situations might arise and held that, where a prosecuting ... attorney, although made the legal advisor [140 Wash. 441] of ... all school districts, could not properly represent ... antagonistic interests of districts ... ...
-
State ex rel. Banks v. Drummond
...The possibility of necessity, touched on only briefly in Reed , was expanded by our subsequent decision in State v. Gage , 107 Wash. 282, 284–85, 181 P. 855 (1919) (construing the general powers phrase "may sue and be sued"). In Gage , we held that the general power to " ‘sue and be sued’ "......
-
School Dist. No. One of Pima County v. Lohr
...e.g., Board of Education of Cincinnati v. Board of Education, 4 Ohio App. 165, 22 Ohio C.C., N.S., 439 (1915); State ex rel. Dysart v. Gage, 107 Wash. 282, 181 P. 855 (1919); Lively v. Board of Education, 115 W.Va. 314, 175 S.E. (1934); Ward v. San Diego School Dist., 203 Cal. 712, 265 P. 8......