State ex rel. Jones v. Clausen
Citations
- 78 Wash. 103
- 138 P. 653
- 1914 Wash. LEXIS 986
Syllabus
<p>Statutes — Construction — Intent — Custom. The settled practice, for twenty years, of the legislature to create offices and fix the salaries of officers and deputies in the general appropriation bill, should be considered by the courts in ascertaining the intent of the legislature to thereby increase a salary fixed by an earlier general law.</p> <p>States — Officers—Salary—Deputy Auditor — Statutes—Appropriation Bills — Scope. The legislature has power in a general appropriation bill to increase the salary of the state officers, fixed by the act of 1890; and the provision in the Laws 1913, p. 9, appropriating $3,600 for the salary of the deputy state auditor for two years, suspends Rem. & Bal. Code, § 9005, fixing his salary at $1,200 per year.</p> <p>Statutes — Title—Amendments—Requisites. Const., art. 2, § 37, providing that no act shall be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act or section amended shall be set forth at full length, has no application to an act which is complete in itself although it is a substitute for a former act on the same subject.</p> <p>Statutes — Titles and Subjects — Appropriation Bills — Salary of State Officers. The title to the general appropriation bill,Laws 1913, p. 9, “an act making appropriations for .... maintenance of and sundry expenses at the various . . . state offices, and for sundry civil expenses of the state government,” is sufficiently broad to sustain a provision increasing the salary of a deputy state officer, fixed by an earlier general act; especially in view of the settled practice of the legislature for twenty years to include such provisions in the general appropriation bill.</p> <p>Main and Ellis, JJ., dissent.</p>
Judges: Chadwick, Crow, Ellis, Fullerton, Gose, Main, Morris, Mount, Parker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Flanders v. MorrisWashington Supreme Court· 1977-01-07· cited 67×
- Holzman v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court· 1916-06-07· cited 39×
- City of Bellingham v. HiteWashington Supreme Court· 1950-12-21· cited 23×
- State Ex Rel. Helm v. KramerWashington Supreme Court· 1973-06-04· cited 17×
- State v. Asotin CountyWashington Supreme Court· 1914-05-18· cited 17×
- State v. GeorgeWashington Supreme Court· 1915-02-11· cited 15×
- Foote v. County of AdamsNebraska Supreme Court· 1956-12-21· cited 9×
- State ex rel. Bloedel-Donavan Lumber Mills v. ClausenWashington Supreme Court· 1922-12-16· cited 3×
- Soto Zaragoza v. MacLeodSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1940-05-22· cited 3×
- Ugarte v. MacLeodSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1940-05-23· cited 2×
Cites
14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- United States v. LangstonSupreme Court· 1886-05-10· cited 90×
- Mill v. BrownUtah Supreme Court· 1907-01-17· cited 90×
- Spokane Grain & Fuel Co. v. LyttakerWashington Supreme Court· 1910-06-16· cited 74×
- United States v. MitchellSupreme Court· 1883-11-05· cited 69×
- United States v. FisherSupreme Court· 1883-11-05· cited 52×
- Com. ex rel. Greene v. GreggSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1894-05-21· cited 38×
- Belknap v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1893-12-11· cited 27×
- Harrison v. Masonic Mutual Benefit SocietySupreme Court of Kansas· 1899-12-09· cited 23×
- State v. SteeleTexas Supreme Court· 1882-06-02· cited 21×
- State ex rel. Davis v. CutlerUtah Supreme Court· 1908-05-28· cited 14×
- State v. CookTexas Supreme Court· 1882-06-02· cited 8×
- Wallace v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1890-01-27· cited 6×
- Collins v. StateSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1892-04-05· cited 5×
- State ex rel. Ross v. ClausenWashington Supreme Court· 1907-11-20· cited 3×
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.