Hilzinger v. Gillman

Citations

• 56 Wash. 228
• 105 P. 471
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 880

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations — Officers — Actions—Parties—Intervention — Taxpayers. In an action by a councilman to enjoin the city clerk from certifying to an elector’s petition for his recall, a taxpayer has no interest entitling him to intervene under Bal. Code, § 4846, it not being alleged that the clerk would not defend the action!</p> <p>Municipal Corporations — Charter—Construction—Recall and Legislation. There is no conflict between a provision of a city charter contemplating a recall of a councilman, when his. action is. not responsive to the will of the majority, and another section providing for his removal by the city council for specified causes.</p> <p>Same — Recall Provision — Authority For.. A provision in a. city charter adopted by a city of the first class under Const., art. 11, § 10, tor the recall of a city councilman, is authorized by Bal. Code, § 740„ providing that the city council shall have the powers, and shall he elected at the times, in the manner, and for the terms prescribed in the charter.</p> <p>Same — Councilman—Teem of Office — Recall. A councilman elected for a definite term fixed by the city charter, which also contains a provision for his recall by a vote of the electors of his ward, is elected for a fixed term, subject to a condition subsequent.</p> <p>Same — Term of Office — -Recall—Impeachment. Const., art. 5, § 3, providing that all officers shall be subject to removal for misconduct in office, has no application to a removal by the recall provided for in the city charter, and the advisability of such recall is a political and not a legal question.</p>