Huntworth v. Tanner
Citations
- 87 Wash. 670
- 152 P. 523
- 1915 Wash. LEXIS 960
Syllabus
<p>Statutes—Construction—Preamble. The body or enacting part of a law controls, if broader than the preamble; but if it can be given a construction consistent with the purpose as declared in the preamble, it will be so construed.</p> <p>Same—Construction—Conflicting Sections—Preamble. Section 1 of the employment agency law, Laws 1915, p. 1, reciting that the welfare of the state depends on the welfare of its “workers” and that the state, exercising its police powers, declares the collection of fees from the “workers” for furnishing employment is detrimental to the welfare of the state, is more than a mere preamble to sections 2 and 3 making it unlawful for any employment agent to receive a fee from “any person” for furnishing him employment; as it declares the intention to advance the protection of the police power to a new field, and hence to limit the law in its scope to “workers,” instead of applying it to “any person.”</p> <p>Statutes—Construction—Ambiguity. The employment agency law, Laws 1915, p. 1, referring in the first section to the employment of “workers” and in the next section to the employment of “any person,” being so ambiguous as to incite contrary opinion as to its meaning, the first resort in its construction should be to discover the antecedent mischief, which related only to employment agencies to which laboring men, as distinguished from professional men, were compelled to resort to obtain employment.</p> <p>Statutes—Construction — Reasonable Operation. The employment agency law, Laws 1915, p. 1, referring in the first section to the employment of “workers” and in the next section making it unlawful for any employment agent to receive a fee from “any person” for furnishing employment, construed with reference to its natural effect when put in operation, has no reasonable relation to any subject other than the protection of those classed as workers or laborers, and was not intended to apply to school teachers who, for a small fee, were put in com
Judges: Chadwick, Main
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land ManagementTenth Circuit· 2005-10-12· cited 154×
- Senior Citizens League, Inc. v. Department of Social SecurityWashington Supreme Court· 1951-03-05· cited 72×
- Kasper v. City of EdmondsWashington Supreme Court· 1966-11-17· cited 49×
- State ex rel. Berry v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court· 1916-07-05· cited 42×
- St. Germain v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers' Union No. 9Washington Supreme Court· 1917-07-17· cited 38×
- Sandona v. City of Cle ElumWashington Supreme Court· 1951-01-12· cited 31×
- Shuman v. GilbertMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1918-01-08· cited 30×
- State v. LeeWashington Supreme Court· 1963-05-29· cited 26×
- Whatcom County v. LanglieWashington Supreme Court· 1952-07-24· cited 22×
- International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 286 v. Sand Point Country ClubWashington Supreme Court· 1974-03-07· cited 17×
- Hughes Tool Company, a Delaware Corporation v. John H. Meier and John R. Suckling, Anthony HatsisTenth Circuit· 1973-10-23· cited 10×
- State v. RossmanWashington Supreme Court· 1916-12-05· cited 2×
- Molini Mejía v. Registrador de la Propiedad de San GermánSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1937-11-30· cited 2×
- Mejía v. Registrar of PropertySupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1937-11-30
Cites
19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Allgeyer v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 1897-03-01· cited 582×
- State ex rel. Davis-Smith Co. v. ClausenWashington Supreme Court· 1911-09-27· cited 213×
- Patterson v. Bark EudoraSupreme Court· 1903-06-01· cited 155×
- Murphy v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1912-06-07· cited 148×
- State v. FurthWashington Supreme Court· 1914-12-18· cited 37×
- Wendt v. Industrial Insurance CommissionWashington Supreme Court· 1914-06-23· cited 35×
- In re the Guardianship of SallWashington Supreme Court· 1910-08-06· cited 24×
- Polk v. MartinWashington Supreme Court· 1914-11-14· cited 21×
- State ex rel. Cowles v. SchivelyWashington Supreme Court· 1911-04-11· cited 19×
- State ex rel. Dorrien v. HazeltineWashington Supreme Court· 1914-10-09· cited 15×
- Sloan v. WestWashington Supreme Court· 1911-06-23· cited 14×
- State ex rel. Griffin v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court· 1912-10-16· cited 13×
- Wiseman v. TannerW.D. Washington· 1914-12-24· cited 12×
- City Cab, Carriage & Transfer Co. v. HaydenWashington Supreme Court· 1913-04-14· cited 11×
- State v. WilsonWashington Supreme Court· 1915-01-08· cited 10×
- Moore v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1890-06-06· cited 10×
- Brown v. StateWashington Supreme Court· 1910-06-27· cited 9×
- State v. AndersonWashington Supreme Court· 1911-01-26· cited 9×
- Hillman v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court· 1903-09-21· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.