State v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 30 December 1919
• Docket Number: 15507.
• Citation: 109 Wash. 214,186 P. 671
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. TINGSTEAD et al. v. JOHNSON et al.

186 P. 671

109 Wash. 214

STATE ex rel. TINGSTEAD et al. v. JOHNSON et al.

No. 15507.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 30, 1919

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John S. Jurey, Judge.

Writ of review by the State of Washington, on the relation of Bertina Tingstead and husband, against J. A. Johnson, Superintendent of Buildings of the City of Seattle, and others, to review determination of Board of Appeals sustaining action of superintendent of buildings in ordering certain buildings of which the relators were tenants to be vacated as unsafe. Judgment for relators reversing determinations of Board of Appeals, and the city appeals. Reversed.

Walter F. Meier, Geo. A. Meagher, and Alex J. Ashen, all of Seattle for appellant.

HOLCOMB C.J.

Under and by virtue of the authority vested in him and in accordance with the provisions relating to such matters in the building code of Seattle, the superintendent of buildings of Seattle, on March 10, 1919 posted notices on two frame buildings situated on Olive street in the city of Seattle, being numbered 614 and 616 Olive street, that the buildings were unsafe and ordered the tenants to vacate the same immediately. The lessees, the Tingsteads, appealed to the Board of Appeals, composed of three disinterested persons, provided for in the city building code, before which a hearing was had. At the hearing the city produced testimony to the effect that the buildings were structurally unsafe, and in such a state of dilapidation that they could not be repaired in compliance with the requirements of the building code without exceeding the allowable expenditures therefor. By reason of the removal of a building adjoining the two buildings in question, the two buildings would be left without support. Two witnesses were produced by the lessees who qualified and testified as to the value of the buildings and the cost of necessary repairing. One testified that the estimated value of the buildings was $700 and the cost of repairs would be $150; the other, that the estimated value of the buildings was about $1,000 and the cost of repairs would be about $150 to $175.

After hearing and considering the testimony, the Board of Appeals sustained the action of the superintendent of buildings and found that the value of the buildings was $700 and the cost of repairs would be $150, and that the removal of the adjoining building weakened the support of the two buildings.

The lessees then sued out a writ of review from the superior court, where the matter was reviewed upon the transcript of the record of the proceedings before the Board of Appeals and upon no other evidence, and the court, reversing the Board of Appeals, found for the relators. The city has appealed.

The statute providing for writs of review provides, among other things, as follows:

'The questions involving the merits to be determined by the court upon the hearing are: * * *

'(4)

...