State ex rel. Puyallup v. Superior Court

Citations

• 50 Wash. 650
• 97 P. 778
• 1908 Wash. LEXIS 800

Syllabus

<p>Prohibition — To Courts — When Lies — Inadequacy of Remedy by Appeal. The remedy by appeal is inadequate, and prohibition lies to prevent the superior court from proceeding to review the action of a city council on certiorari from the revocation of a liquor license, where it appears that the license would expire before the case could be heard on appeal '(Rudkin and Fullerton, JJ., dissenting).</p> <p>Same — Remedy by Certiorari. Where the remedy by appeal is inadequate because the right would expire before an appeal could be heard, prohibition lies notwithstanding a remedy by certiorari, where the result would be the same whether determined on certiorari or prohibition (Rudkin, J., dissenting).</p> <p>Intoxicating Liquors — License — Revocation — Power of City Council — Review by Courts — Prohibition. Under Bal. Code, § 2934, conferring upon the city council the sole and exclusive authority and power to regulate, license, or prohibit the sale of spirituous liquors, the action of the city council in revoking a license without cause and refunding the unearned portion of the license fee is conclusive and not subject to review by the courts; nor is it restricted by Bal. Code, § 2935, authorizing the forfeiture and revocation of a license for violation of its terms, construing the two statutes together.</p>