Shook v. Sexton

Citations

• 37 Wash. 509
• 79 P. 1093
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 760

Syllabus

<p>Appeal and Error — Review—Stipulation—Effect. A stipulation admitting the facts stated in the pleadings, and treated by the parties and court as sufficient to,raise the validity of an ordinance, will be so considered on appeal.</p> <p>Appeal — Jurisdiction—Amount in Controversy. The supreme court has jurisdiction of an appeal involving the validity of an ordinance, regardless of the amount in controversy.</p> <p>Animals — Impounding—Municipal Corporations — Ordinances —Validity—Constitutional Law — Due Process of Law. Under Bal. Code, § 1011, a municipal corporation of the fourth class may prohibit the running at large of domestic animals, and an ordinance providing for the summary sale of impounded animals, under reasonable notice, without a judicial inquiry, is effective to transfer the title and does not authorize the taking of property without due process of law.</p> <p>Same — Imposing Fine. A provision in such an ordinance imposing a fine against an owner for permitting animals to run at large, to be exacted without a judicial investigation, is unconstitutional.</p> <p>Same — Invalidity of Ordinance as to Fine Not Affecting Balance of Impounding Ordinance — Sale—Validity—Offep, to Pay Legal Charges. An invalid provision in an impounding ordinance whereby a fine is exacted from the owner, does not affect the validity of the other provision of the ordinance, otherwise complete in itself, prohibiting the running at large of domestic animals and providing for a summary sale, without judicial investigation, to pay said fine and the charges for the impounding, keeping, and sale; nor does such provision affect the validity of a sale, where the owner did not offer to pay the legal charges; before or after the sale.</p>