State v. Savidge

• Decision Date: 20 March 1925
• Docket Number: 19179.
• Citation: 133 Wash. 532,234 P. 1
• Parties: STATE ex rel. GOODWIN et al. v. SAVIDGE, Commissioner of Public Lands.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

234 P. 1

133 Wash. 532

STATE ex rel. GOODWIN et al. v. SAVIDGE, Commissioner of Public Lands.

No. 19179.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 20, 1925

Department 1.

Original application for writ of mandate, by the State, on the relation of Sidney E. Goodwin and another, to be directed against Clark V. Savidge, as Commissioner of Public Lands. Writ denied.

Charles H. Heighton and L. C. Stevenson, both of Seattle, for plaintiffs.

John H Dunbar and M. H. Wight, both of Olympia, for respondent.

ASKREN J.

This is an original application for a peremptory writ of mandate to compel C. V. Savidge, as commissioner of public lands, to issue to the relator a lease for the purpose of mining and the extraction of petroleum and natural gas.

The Attorney General, appearing upon behalf of respondent, has demurred upon the ground that the application should have been filed in the superior court in the first instance relying upon State ex rel. Ottesen v. Clausen, 124 Wash. 389, 214 P. 635. We think this contention should be sustained. This court has heretofore taken jurisdiction of many cases of this character, but such jurisdiction is not exclusive, and it seems to be the better practice that such cases should first be presented to the superior court, and, if the parties are not satisfied with the decision, then appeal may be had to this court.

In State ex rel. Ottesen v. Clausen, supra, we quoted approvingly from the rule found in 18 R. C. L. 101, as follows:

'Though the state courts of last resort are given original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and under such a grant have in many instances exercised such jurisdiction frequently without their jurisdiction being questioned, it does not follow that such courts, whose principal function is to exercise appellate or supervisory jurisdiction, will assume original jurisdiction in all cases in which their aid may be sought, and which otherwise may be a proper case for the use of the remedy. And in this connection the established rule seems to be that, as original jurisdiction is conferred in order that the court of highest authority in the state should have the power to protect the rights, interests, and franchises of the state, and the rights and interests of the whole people, to enforce the performance of high official duties affecting the public at large, and, in emergency (of which the court itself is to determine), to assume jurisdiction of cases affecting local public interests, or private rights where there is no other adequate remedy, and the exercise of such jurisdiction is

...