# Parrish v. Reed

> Washington Supreme Court · June 26, 1891 · 2 Wash. 491

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4724216

## Case

- **Full name:** H. E. Parrish v. Thomas M. Reed, Auditor of the State of Washington
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 26, 1891
- **Citations:** 2 Wash. 491; 27 P. 230; 1891 Wash. LEXIS 80
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stiles
- **Judges:** Anders, Dunbar, Hoyt, Scott, Stiles
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4724216

## Opinion text

Stiles, J.
(dissenting). — Section 26 of article 2 of the constitution provides that the legislature shall direct by law in what manner and in what courts suits may be brought against the state. Upon this subject no legislation has been had, and it is therefore assumed that there is no present way by which a claimant against the state may have his rights adjudicated. In the present case the petitioner claims to have performed services for the state, and seeks as his only remedy a mandamus against the auditor. Under such a state of facts I think that the courts should be somewhat liberal in the granting of alternative writs, and that in this case the alternative writ should be issued, as it is only after the issuance of the alternative writ that the petitioner has any real opportunity to have his cause presented by counsel and argued to the court. For this reason I do not agree to the decision of the court, and express no opinion on the merits of the application.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4724216. Public record. Not legal advice.