Hillman v. City of Seattle

Citations

• 33 Wash. 14
• 73 P. 791
• 1903 Wash. LEXIS 483

Syllabus

<p>Injunction—Restraining Enforcement of Penal Ordinance. Injunction against the enforcement of a penal ordinance not a police regulation, which affects valuable property rights, may be maintained where otherwise resort to the criminal courts would be required to test the validity of the law.</p> <p>Municipal Corporations—Ordinances—Regulation of Platting Additions to City—Validity. The fact that a section of a municipal ordinance regulating the filing of plats of additions affects lands outside the city does not invalidate the remainder as to lands within the city.</p> <p>Same—Discretion of City Council—Ultra Vires. The Seattle municipal code of 1892, §§ 747-750, requiring plats of city additions to be approved by the city council if, upon report by the city engineer, the streets are found to coincide with other streets in the city, vests discretionary powers in the council, and does not absolutely require that they shall so coincide, and injunction will not lie to restrain the enforcement of the ordinance as ultra vires, or because the council may abuse its discretion, unless compliance is made impossible or unreasonable by the council’s construction thereof.</p> <p>Same—Regulations as to Payment of Taxes. An ordinance making the payment of city taxes a prerequisite to the filing of any plat as an addition to the city is not an unreasonable regulation.</p> <p>Same—Complaint—Sufficiency. A complaint to enjoin the enforcement of an ordinance regulating the filing of plats of additions to the city is insufficient when it fails to allege the necessary preliminary steps for approval of a plat, since it may be finally approved by the council.</p> <p>Same—Title of Ordinance. The objection that the title of an ordinance is not broad enough to include the penalty, will not be considered in a suit to enjoin its enforcement, when it does not affect other portions of the act.</p>