State ex rel. Powell v. Fassett

Citations

• 69 Wash. 555
• 125 P. 963
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 950

Syllabus

<p>Appeal and Error—Briefs—Assignment of Errors. A brief will not be struck out for failure to clearly assign the errors, where the errors relied upon are sufficiently indicated.</p> <p>Appeal and Error—Several Judgments—Notice—Bond—Sufficiency. One notice of appeal and one appeal bond is all that is required although there are two judgments dismissing the several defendants in the case.</p> <p>Municipal Corporations—Officers—Salaries—Liability. In quo warranto against a city and an incumbent claiming plaintiff’s office, the city is absolved from liability to plaintiff where it had paid the incumbent the entire salary up to the time of the trial.</p> <p>Quo Warranto—When Lies—Who Are “Ofeicebs.” Quo warranto lies in favor of a foreman of construction work, even if he is not an “officer” as defined by the common law, where the city charter adopts the merit system and applies it to all employees placed in the civil service list with manifest intent to classify such positions as offices and to have such officers removable only for cause.</p> <p>Municipal Corporations—Charters—Construction—Civil Service. Under Spokane charter adopting the merit system, section 53, providing that employees in office at the time of the adoption of the charter shall retain their positions unless removed for cause is immediately operative, notwithstanding section 120, providing for a classification of officers and employees which cannot be made until after the election of commissioners three months after adoption of the charter.</p> <p>Quo Warranto—Parties—Proper Necessary Defendants. In quo warranto to oust an illegal appointee of the commissioner of public utilities and to restore the plaintiff to. the position and for damages, the commissioner in his official capacity is a proper party defendant; since plaintiff is not required to resort to two actions where one will suffice.</p>