State v. Peter

• Citation: 21 Wash. 243,57 P. 814
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HYLAND v. PETER.
• Decision Date: 19 June 1899
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

57 P. 814

21 Wash. 243

STATE ex rel. HYLAND v. PETER.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 19, 1899

Appeal from superior court, King county; William Hickman Moore Judge.

Quo warranto by the state, on the relation of Ivan L. Hyland against John W. Peter, to determine the title to an office. There was a judgment for relator, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Milo A. Root and P. V. Davis, for appellant.

E. F Blaine, Lee De Vries, and Wilmon Tucker, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

The respondent and appellant were rival candidates for the office of city attorney of the city of Ballard at the municipal election held on the 6th day of December 1898. The election board, upon the count of the ballots, found that the respondent had received a majority of all of the legal votes cast, and made their returns accordingly, whereupon a certificate of election was issued to him. The appellant instituted a contest before the city council of the city of Ballard, in the trial of which both parties participated, which resulted in the cancellation of the certificate issued to the respondent, and a certificate being issued to the appellant. The respondent thereupon brought a proceeding in quo warranto in the superior court of King county, which court found the respondent to be entitled to the office, and entered a judgment ousting the appellant therefrom. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

Two questions are presented by the record: (1) Were the contest proceedings had before the city council a bar to any subsequent proceedings in the court? And (2) which candidate received the greatest number of legal votes?

1. The city of Ballard is a city of the third class. The statute applicable to cities of that class provides that 'the city council shall judge of the qualifications of its members, and of all election returns, and determine contested elections of all the city officers.' 1 Hill's Ann. St. & Codes, § 634. No method is provided by the statute for carrying on a contest under this provision, and it was found by the lower court, and conceded here, that the city council has not, by ordinance or otherwise, provided such a procedure. State ex rel. Blake v. Morris, 14 Wash. St. 262, 44 P. 266, was a proceeding in quo warranto to determine whether the relator, Blake, or the defendant, Morris, was entitled to the office of councilman of the city of Ballard. The conditions existing were exactly similar to these in the present case, and it was contended there, as here, that the findings of the city council were conclusive of the rights of the parties, and a bar to the subsequent proceedings in the courts. In that case we held that the statute quoted, in that it did not vest in the city council exclusive jurisdiction of contest proceedings, did not oust this court of its jurisdiction to try the question by a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto, and inasmuch as the city council had not passed any ordinance, or made any provision for carrying on or for the determination of such contest, 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. This case is decisive of the first question raised. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, questions the correctness of the rule therein announced, and earnestly insists that the case be overruled. Without stating or attempting to answer his objections, we are not satisfied that the case is so far wrong in principle as to warrant our overruling it. Stare decisis is the policy of the courts. Upon this principle rests the authority of judicial decisions as precedents, and the doctrine ought not to be departed from, except for urgent reasons.

2. Of the ballots cast, the court counted, with the consent of the parties, 254 for appellant, and 261 for the respondent, leaving 15 in dispute, which are brought here in the record, and numbered from 1 to 15 inclusive. Ballots Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11, and 12 were not counted by the court for either party; ballots Nos. 4 and 7 were counted for respondent; ballots Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15 were counted for the appellant; the final totals being, as found by the court, 263 for the respondent and 262 for the appellant. The ballots used were in the form prescribed by the Code (section 1364, Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St.), a copy being reproduced below (the marginal printed instructions omitted):

--------------------------------------- Citizens' Ticket. --------------------------------------- Independent Citizens' Ticket. --------------------------------------- Vote for one. For Mayor. --------------------------------------- Citizens' Ticket. G. G. Startup. --------------------------------------- Independent Citizens' Ticket. A. F. Bethe. --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Vote for one. For City Treasurer. --------------------------------------- Citizens' Ticket. F. M. De Moss. --------------------------------------- Independent Citizens' Ticket. Guy C. Wincapaw. --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Vote for one. For City Attorney. --------------------------------------- Citizens' Ticket. John W. Peter. --------------------------------------- Independent Citizens' Ticket. Ivan L. Hyland. --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Vote for one. For City Clerk. --------------------------------------- Citizens' Ticket. G. W. Emerson. --------------------------------------- Independent Citizens' Ticket. G. A. Sanborn. --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Vote for one. For Health Officer. --------------------------------------- Citizens' Ticket. C. S. Emery. --------------------------------------- Independent Citizens' Ticket. J. P. Lawrence. --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Vote for one. For Councilman-at-Large. --------------------------------------- Citizens' Ticket. L. S. Hawley. --------------------------------------- Independent Citizens' Ticket. G. A. Hughbanks. --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Vote for one. For City Councilman.

...