State ex rel. Hill v. Superior Court

Washington Supreme Court

State ex rel. Hill v. Superior Court

30 P. 82, 4 Wash. 327, 1892 Wash. LEXIS 223

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedMay 20, 1892

DocketNo. 596

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 30 P. 82 (State ex rel. Hill v. Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Hill v. Superior Court, 30 P. 82, 4 Wash. 327, 1892 Wash. LEXIS 223 (Wash. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hoyt, J. —

By this proceeding relator seeks to compel the superior court of King county, and two of the judges thereof, to perform certain acts set out in his petition. There are three judges of the superior court of King county, and it is clear either that it takes all of them to make a complete court, and when action of the court is sought the proceeding must be against them all, or that any one of them constitutes a court when sitting as such, and can do any act in a case properly before him within [328]*328the power of the court. Upon either of these suppositions the petition herein is insufficient. If it takes all of the judges to do the act, then they were all necessary parties to this proceeding. If anyone could do it, then the one whose duty it was to act should have been singled out, and the proceeding had against him alone. The rule is well settled in cases of this kind that the proceeding must be had against the officer whose duty it is to act, and that the petitioner must at his peril proceed against the proper officer; he cannot proceed against several officers, and ask the court to decide as between them which one should perform the act.

The petition for the alternative writ of momdamus must be denied.

Anders, O. J., and Dunbar, Stiles and Scott, JJ. concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hoyt, J. —

By this proceeding relator seeks to compel the superior court of King county, and two of the judges thereof, to perform certain acts set out in his petition. There are three judges of the superior court of King county, and it is clear either that it takes all of them to make a complete court, and when action of the court is sought the proceeding must be against them all, or that any one of them constitutes a court when sitting as such, and can do any act in a case properly before him within [328]*328the power of the court. Upon either of these suppositions the petition herein is insufficient. If it takes all of the judges to do the act, then they were all necessary parties to this proceeding. If anyone could do it, then the one whose duty it was to act should have been singled out, and the proceeding had against him alone. The rule is well settled in cases of this kind that the proceeding must be had against the officer whose duty it is to act, and that the petitioner must at his peril proceed against the proper officer; he cannot proceed against several officers, and ask the court to decide as between them which one should perform the act.

The petition for the alternative writ of momdamus must be denied.

Anders, O. J., and Dunbar, Stiles and Scott, JJ. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 P. 82, 4 Wash. 327, 1892 Wash. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hill-v-superior-court-wash-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack