State v. Superior Court for King County, 23748.

• Decision Date: 13 April 1932
• Docket Number: 23748.
• Citation: 9 P.2d 1087,167 Wash. 655
• Parties: STATE ex rel. DORE v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR KING COUNTY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

9 P.2d 1087

167 Wash. 655

STATE ex rel. DORE v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR KING COUNTY.

No. 23748.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 13, 1932

Original proceeding by the State, on the relation of John F. Dore, for writ of certiorari to be directed to the Superior Court for King County, to review a judgment denying to relator the office of Mayor of the City of Seattle.

Judgment affirmed.

T. M Royce and John F. Dore, both of Seattle, for relator.

Colvin & Rhodes, of Seattle, for respondent.

TOLMAN C.J.

This is an original proceeding in this court to review by writ of certiorari a judgment denying to relator the office of mayor of the city of Seattle.

The facts are not at all in dispute, and the record Before us shows a situation substantially as follows:

One Frank H. Edwards became the mayor of Seattle on the first Monday in June, 1930, having been previously duly and regularly elected for the usual two- year term beginning on that day. In July, 1931, at a recall election regularly called and held, Mayor Edwards was recalled, and the vote having been canvassed and officially announced, the city council, on July 14, 1931, elected one Robert H. Harlin to succeed Edwards as mayor.

The next succeeding general election for mayor of Seattle occurred on March 8, 1932. Mayor Harlin and the relator were both candidates for the office at that election, and the relator having received a majority of the votes cast he was officially declared to be elected, a certificate of election was issued to him, and he immediately qualified and made demand upon Mayor Harlin for the possession of the office. That demand being refused, the relator brought an action in the superior court in the nature of quo warranto to oust Mayor Harlin and to have himself declared entitled to serve as mayor during the remainder of the term of Mayor Edwards. That action was in the superior court disposed of an demurrer, resulting in a judgment which recites that the relator's complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; that the relator has no legal capacity to maintain the action; and the action is dismissed with costs.

The arguments here have taken a rather wide range, and we have been invited to decide questions which are perhaps not Before us or which at least we find it unnecessary to now decide.

In view of the desirability of an early decision, we will discuss only such matters as seem to be vital.

It is conceded that the regular term of the mayor of Seattle is two years, and if Mayor Edwards had continued in office, his term would have extended to the first Monday in June, 1932; at which time his successor, elected on March 8, 1932, would have been entitled to take office. Mayor Harlin, when he succeeded Edwards by election of the council to fill the vacancy, did not take office by virtue of the recall provisions of the city charter, because those provisions had theretofore been superseded by the statute. State ex rel. Lynch v. Fairley, 76 Wash. 332, 136 P 374. The vacancy was caused by the recall, and when the vacancy occurred, the general provisions of the city charter providing for the filling of vacancies, however caused, came into play. That provision is:

' Vacancies; how filled.--* * * If any elective office become vacant, the city council shall, within twenty days thereafter, proceed to elect by ballot a person to fill such

...