State v. Headlee

• Decision Date: 07 December 1897
• Citation: 51 P. 369,18 Wash. 220
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE EX REL. PORTER v. HEADLEE, COUNTY AUDITOR.

51 P. 369

18 Wash. 220

STATE EX REL. PORTER v. HEADLEE, COUNTY AUDITOR.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 7, 1897

Appeal from superior court, Snohomish county; Frank T. Reid, Judge.

Application by state of Washington, at the relation of H. A. Porter against T. E. Headlee, as county auditor of Snohomish county for writ of mandamus. From a judgment entered after a demurrer to the petition was sustained, relator appeals. Reversed.

Cooley & Horan, for appellant.

F. M Headlee and Humes & Lysons, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

This is an application for a writ of mandate brought by the relator in the name of the state, against the defendant, as county auditor of Snohomish county, to compel the defendant, as such county auditor to draw and deliver to relator a warrant upon the salary fund of said county, for the sum of $1,932.95. The petition states the facts. Its material part is as follows: After setting up the facts of election and qualification of the relator for the office of justice of the peace in the city of Everett, and that he served as justice during the years of 1895-96, it alleges that during said time, although the city of Everett had more than 5,000 inhabitants, such fact was unknown to the relator, and continued to be so unknown during all the time that said relator held said office, until the 28th of December, 1896; that by reason of relator's ignorance of the fact that the said city of Everett had, during said time, more than 5,000 inhabitants, said relator was unaware that he was entitled to the salary of $100 per month, as such justice of the peace, or that he came within the provisions of the statute relating to salaried officers; that for such reasons he failed to make any claim for salary as such justice of the peace, or to pay into the county treasury any fees collected by him by virtue of his said office, or to take duplicate receipts, as provided by law, from the county treasurer. The petition further alleges that acting in ignorance of said fact, from time to time during his said term of office prior to the said 28th day of December, 1896, he presented to the board of county commissioners of Snohomish county his claims for fees in criminal cases, which said claims were by said board of county commissioners duly audited and allowed from time to time, and warrants issued to said relator for the respective amounts thereof; and, further, that upon the 28th day of December, 1896, and as soon as it came to his knowledge that the said city of Everett had during the times above alleged upward of 5,000 inhabitants, said relator duly presented to said board of county commissioners in and for said county his claim against said county for the balance due him on account of salary as such justice of the peace for the time above mentioned; that the county commissioners, after crediting said county upon relator's said claims for all fees which should have been by the relator paid into the county treasury during said period, and for all payments made by said county to him on account of fees in criminal cases during said period, found the full amount of relator's claim as presented, being the sum of $1,932.95; that thereafter, and upon the 29th day of December, 1896, said board of county commissioners, in regular session, took up the consideration of said relator's claim, and, upon said hearing, received evidence as to the population of said city of Everett during the times above mentioned, and also as to the correctness of said items of credit to said county in said claims retained for fees received by, and payments made to, said relator, and at said time said board, after such hearing, duly found that, during all the times above mentioned, the city of Everett was a municipal corporation of the third class, having more than 5,000 inhabitants; and that thereafter and upon the 2d day of January, 1897, said board of county commissioners fully adjusted said claim, and determined and found that, after deducting all amounts properly chargeable to said relator upon his said claim on account of said fees received by and payments made to said relator, there still remained due to said relator upon his said claim the full sum of $1,932.95, and, in and by said order, did direct the above-named defendant, as county auditor of said county, to draw and deliver to said relator a warrant on the salary fund of said county in the full sum of his said claim so audited and allowed as aforesaid; and that said order has ever since been in effect, and has never been rescinded or revoked in any manner. The petition further alleges that afterwards, for the purpose of avoiding, and with the intent to avoid, the payment of said claim so audited and allowed, the commissioners procured J. H. Naylor, the prosecuting attorney of Snohomish county, to institute an injunctional suit in the superior court of said county...