State v. Hinkle
| Decision Date | 29 August 1924 |
| Docket Number | 18849. |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. McQUESTEN v. HINKLE, Secretary of State. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Original proceeding in mandamus by the State of Washington, on the relation of G. Dowe McQuesten, against G. Grant Hinkle Secretary of State. Writ denied.
Vance & Christensen, of Olympia, for plaintiff,
John H Dunbar and R. G. Sharpe, both of Olympia, for defendant.
This is an original action in this court by which the relator seeks a writ of mandate directed to the secretary of state requiring him to file a declaration of candidacy for the office of state senator of the fifteenth senatorial district, as of August 9, 1924.
It appears that relator, being duly qualified to be a candidate for the nomination which he seeks, on August 8, 1924, at or before the hour of 9:30 p. m., deposited in the United States post office at Yakima, Yakima county, Wash., a letter addressed to the secretary of state at his office in Olympia with postage prepaid, containing relator's declaration of candidacy for the office mentioned, together with the proper fee for filing the same; that the letter containing this declaration was postmarked at Yakima as at 9:30 p. m. of the day it was deposited, and that in the ordinary course of mail the letter would leave Yakima at 11:58 p. m. on August 8, and should arrive at Olympia at 11:40 a. m. an August 9; that it usually takes until about 12 o'clock m. for the mail to be transported from the railway station to the post office and it is there distributed into lock boxes between 1 o'clock and 1:30 o'clock p. m. of the same day, and all mail so received, addressed to the secretary of state, should, prior to 2 p. m. of the day of its arrival, be placed in the lock box which is maintained for the use of the secretary of state's office.
Relator alleges that the envelope containing the declaration of candidacy was received at the post office at Olympia shortly after 11:20 a. m. on the 9th day of August, 1924, and was placed in the post office box of the secretary of state in the regular course of delivery soon after 12 o'clock m. of that day, the exact time being unknown, and that the secretary did not go nor send to the post office or get his mail therefrom after 12 o'clock m. of that day, and did not in fact receive relator's declaration until the morning of Monday, August 11; but that, had he gone to the post office and secured his mail from his lock box at any time during the afternoon of August 9, he would have received such declaration, and could have filed it on that day. It is further alleged:
'That affiant is informed and believes that said J. Grant Hinkle, as secretary of state of the state of Washington, closed his office at 12 o'clock m. on Saturday, August 9, 1924, and neither he nor any of his employees were on duty on said date after said time, and did not go to the post office and get the mail delivered into the post office box of the secretary of state on the afternoon of said date, but there is no law in the state of Washington authorizing the closing of said office on any week day that is not a legal holiday, and said August 9, 1924, was not a legal holiday; that the usual and customary closing time of public offices of the state of Washington, including that of the secretary of state, is not earlier than 5 o'clock p. m. on all week days other than legal holidays, and affiant was entitled by law to file his declaration of candidacy in the office of the secretary of state any time during business hours of August 9, 1924, up to the hour of 5 o'clock p. m. of said day, and verily believes and alleges that it was the duty of said secretary of state to keep his office open for filing declarations of candidacy and the transaction of other business up to the hour of 5 o'clock on said date, and to get from the post office at Olympia the mail distributed to and placed in his post office box during said day and up to the hour of usual proper closing time, to wit, 5 o'clock p. m., and that had he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Husebye v. Jaeger
...34 A.D. 79, 53 N.Y.S. 1093 (1898); State ex rel. Earley v. Batchelor, 15 Wash.2d 149, 130 P.2d 72 (1942); State ex rel. McQuesten v. Hinkle, 130 Wash. 525, 228 P. 299 (1924). In determining which line of cases is persuasive in interpreting the North Dakota electorate's intent in enacting th......
-
Daniels v. Cavner
...not be the basis for relief, since the customary hours of the office were well known. The situation in State ex rel. McQuesten v. Hinkle, 130 Wash. 525, 228 P. 299, was that an aspirant for State office in the State of Washington mailed his declaration of candidacy on Saturday. The Secretar......
-
State ex rel. Uhlman v. Melton
...Earp v. Riley, 40 Okl. 340, 138 P. 164 (1914); Rushton v. Lelander, 15 Cal.App. 448, 115 P. 56 (1911). In State ex rel. McQuesten v. Hinkle, 130 Wash. 525, 228 P. 299 (1924), the candidate mailed his declaration of candidacy to the office of the Secretary of State. It arrived in Olympia on ......
-
State ex rel. Earley v. Batchelor
...filing was not timely. Discussing 'the principal question to be decided,' Judge Tolman, the author of the opinion, said, at page 530 of 130 Wash., at page 300 of 228 P.: may be that some authorities can be found holding to the contrary, but if so they are out of harmony with modern conditio......