Brown v. County of Pierce

Citations

• 28 Wash. 345
• 68 P. 872
• 1902 Wash. LEXIS 492

Syllabus

<p>ACTS OP HEALTH OFFICERS —• APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY FOR PEST HOUSE-LLYBILITY OF CITY AND COUNTY'-SUFFICIENCY OF COM-</p> <p>PLAINT.</p> <p>Tbe fact that tbe complaint in an action to recover tbe value of the use of premises seized by the public authorities for pest-house purposes alleges that such use created an indebtedness to plaintiffs to the amount of the full value of the property, for which they ask judgment and tender a deed of the property, would not render the complaint insufficient as stating a cause of action for the recovery of the actual value of the use of the property for the purpose for which it was taken.</p> <p>SAME-NONSUIT.</p> <p>In an action against the city and county jointly for seizing and using plaintiffs’ property for pesthouse purposes, motions for nonsuit by each of the defendants were properly denied, where the evidence showed that the city health officer sent his assistant to look for a place to quarantine smallpox patients in and that such assistant, in connection with the county physician, found an old, dilapidated, unoccupied building belonging to plaintiffs, which was fixed up for the purpose, and patients sent there by both the city and county physicians; that the action of the city health officer was fully ratified by the city board of health; that the county physician reported to the chairman of the county board of health the same day of the selection of the house and asked him how he was to care for patients and was answered to go ahead and use his best judgment; but there was no evidence that the county board of health, when in session, ever took any action in regard to the matter. •</p> <p>SAME •— EVIDENCE.</p> <p>The admission in evidence of the minutes of a meeting of the board of health of the defendant city, merely as a circumstance for the purpose of connecting the county with the city in the use of the premises seized, by showing the different steps and circumstances surrounding the case, was not erroneous.</p> <p>SA