the validity of this statute is not challenged and its language is unambiguous
How later courts described this case
- the validity of this statute is not challenged and its language is unambiguous
- Laws of 1933, chapter 58, p. 326, § 23
- legislative intent cannot be demonstrated by post-enactment depositions and affidavits of legislators and government officers
- "[T]he scope and intent of a statute is not controlled by the name given to it by way of designation or description."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Millard, J.
(dissenting) — I dissent. No useful purpose would be subserved by an elaborate dissent. It is enough to say that I am not convinced by the foregoing majority opinion that the position of this court in
Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Henneford,
195 Wash. 553 , 81 P. (2d) 786 , is unsound.