Opinion

State Ex Rel. Carr v. Superior Court

  • 190 Wash. 553
  • 69 P.2d 1052
  • 1937 Wash. LEXIS 421
Court
Washington Supreme Court
Filed
Jun 28, 1937
Status
Published
Author
Holcomb
On the bench
Robinson, Holcomb
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 2.4%

The opinion

Holcomb, J.

(dissenting) — Whatever may have been the disregard .of the provisions of the act in question, it is certain that the voters were not and could not have been misled. They were well advised as to when the special election would be held for the creation of the district and its purpose.

In

Groom v. Port of

Bellingham, 189 Wash. 445 ,

*562

65 P. (2d) 1060 , not cited or discussed by the majority, we said:

“An election will not be declared invalid for any irregularities when it appears that the result of the election was an intelligent expression of the popular will, ...” and,

“The vote was such, as compared with the votes upon other propositions, as to indicate an intelligent and well-informed expression of the popular will.”

The concession that “a board of county commissioners has the same power to correct its records that a court has” is correct and concedes everything.

Richardson v.

Ostlund, 168 Wash. 638 , 13 P. (2d) 2 , attempted to be distinguished by the majority, involved an eminent domain proceeding, the highest form of seizure of property known to the law, where we held that the proceedings for a county road were not invalidated by failure to record the resolution of the board of county commissioners declaring their intention and a public necessity where it was in writing duly signed and filed and was recorded eighteen days thereafter, was a sufficient compliance with Rem. Comp. Stat., § 4072 and Rem. 1927 Sup., § 6447-1, requiring the recording of all proceedings and entry of the resolution in their minutes.

Great stress is made in the prevailing opinion on the emergency declaration attached to the 1931 act, which is of small importance in considering this matter. All the emergency clause did was to declare the act necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, peace and safety, but it prescribes no different procedure than was prescribed in the original law of 1929.

It is clear that the writ should be denied and the trial court affirmed.

Blake, J., concurs with Holcomb, J.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.