State v. Morris

• Decision Date: 12 March 1896
• Citation: 44 P. 266,14 Wash. 262
• Parties: STATE EX REL. BLAKE v. MORRIS.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

44 P. 266

14 Wash. 262

STATE EX REL. BLAKE v. MORRIS.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 12, 1896

Appeal from superior court, King county; J. W. Langley, Judge.

Proceedings in quo warranto by J. H. Blake against R. A. Morris to determine a contested election. From a judgment in favor of relator, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Fred H Peterson, for appellant.

Frank H. Knapp and Richard Winsor, for respondent.

SCOTT J.

This is a proceeding in quo warranto to determine whether the relator, Blake, or the defendant, Morris, is entitled to the office of councilman of the city of Ballard. The court found in favor of Blake, and Morris has appealed.

It is contended that the court had no jurisdiction in the premises for the reason that section 634, c. 6, Gen. St., provides that "the city council shall judge of the qualifications of its members and of all election returns and determine contested elections of all of the city officers." We are of the opinion that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, notwithstanding this. Section 6, art. 4, of the state constitution provides that "the superior court shall also have original jurisdiction in all cases and of all proceedings in which jurisdiction shall not have been by law vested exclusively in some other court." Section 679 Code Proc., provides for the filing of an information "when any person shall usurp, intrude upon, or unlawfully hold or exercise any public office," etc and "when several persons claim to be entitled to the same office," etc. The clause of section 634, supra, quoted, does not expressly attempt to oust the superior court of jurisdiction in such cases, and it is not necessary, therefore, to consider its validity, as it can stand as a cumulative remedy. People v. Bingham, 82 Cal. 238, 22 P. 1039.

It is further contended by appellant that a proceeding was had, both parties participating, before the city council, to determine said matter, which resulted in favor of appellant. But it appears that the city council had not passed any ordinance or made any provision for the carrying on or the determination of such contests, and their action could result in nothing more than establishing a prima facie right to the office, which would be subject to a subsequent contest in a proceeding of this nature. Paine, Elect. § 867.

It is further contended that the court erred in rejecting certain ballots, which appellant claims...