Skip to main content
· 11/30/1903

Scouten v. City of Whatcom

Citations

  • 33 Wash. 273
  • 74 P. 389
  • 1903 Wash. LEXIS 518

Syllabus

<p>Statutes—Construction—Amendments—Legislative Intent— Ambiguity—When Shown. Where an amendatory act (Laws 1903, p. 279) for the consolidation of cities provides that the special election of officers for the new city shall be held “six months after” the filing of the abstract of the vote for consolidation, and that it be called immediately, requiring a six months’ notice, and the former act provided that it shall be held “within six months;” and another section of both the old and new acts provides that all special elections shall be held in accordance with the general election law, requiring a fifteen days’ notice, such an ambiguity exists that an examination into the legislative intent is necessary, especially since the requirement that it be held six months after the date of filing may bring the election on Sunday, and since it is usual to allow latitude to avoid confusion. (Fullerton, C. X, and Mount, X, dissent.)</p> <p>Same—Enrolled Bill—When not Conclusive. Where a doubt exists as to the legislative intent in the wording of an ambiguous statute, reference may be made to the history of the bill before the legislature, beyond the enrolled bill, to ascertain the intent.</p> <p>Same—Municipal Elections—Time op Holding. Where the original bill (Laws 1903, p. 279) as introduced provided that an election should be held “within six months” after a certain date, and such clause remained in the bill through all its stages up to and including its final passage, when in the enrolled bill for the first time it appears as “six months after” said date, such change is manifestly a clerical error of the enrolling clerk, and in connection with an inconsistent section requiring a fifteen days’ notice, the enrolled bill requiring six months’ notice does not express the legislative intent, and must be construed to permit the election “within” six months upon fifteen days’ notice, especially as the act was only amendatory upon a distinct point, no other change being made. (Fuller

Judges: Fullerton, Hadley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.