State ex rel. Attorney General v. Seattle Gas & Electric Co.

Citations

• 28 Wash. 488
• 68 P. 946
• 1902 Wash. LEXIS 512

Syllabus

<p>QUO WARRANTO — PLEADING—SUFFICIENCY OF CAUSE OF ACTION — OBJECTION ON APPEAL.</p> <p>In an action in the name of the state on the relation of the attorney general demanding by what warrant defendant claims to enjoy certain franchises, an answer that it is no concern of the state nor of its attorney general is, in effect, a demurrer on the ground that the complaint fails to state facts constituting a cause of action, and, under Bal. Code, § 4911, such objection can be urged in the supreme court, though no ruling thereon was had in the superior court.</p> <p>SAME-CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE.</p> <p>Under the rule requiring remedial statutes to be liberally construed, the word “person” should be construed as including a corporation, and “public franchise” as including the exercise of the right to open and use city streets for laying gas pipes, in that provision of Bal. Code, § 5780, subd. 1, which authorizes in-formations in the nature of quo warranto to be filed “when any person shall usurp, intrude into, or unlawfully hold or exercise any public office or franchise within the state.” (Anders, J., dissents.)</p> <p>SAME —• WRONGFUL EXERCISE OF FRANCHISES-PROCEEDINGS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL-WHEN PROSECUTING ATTORNEY PROPER RELATOR.</p> <p>There being no statutory provision empowering the attorney general on his own motion to inquire by quo warranto into the wrongful exercise of public franchises by a corporation, and the prosecuting attorney being expressly authorized so to do, under Bal. Code, § 5781, which provides that “The information may be filed by the prosecuting attorney in the superior court of the proper county, up:on his own relation, whenever he, shall deem it his duty to do so, or shall be directed by the court or other competent authority,” the attorney general has ho authority, even under the common-law powers, if any, inhering in his office, to institute such an action. (Reavis, C. J., and Fullerton, J., dissent.)</p> <p>SAME-PROCEEDING IN BEHALF OF CITY-NEC