State ex rel. Rose v. Hindley

Citations

• 67 Wash. 240
• 121 P. 447
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 1156

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations — Charters — Ordinances — Implied Repeal — Officers. A new city charter, purporting to be the entire organic law of the city, which provides that every ordinance in force at the time of its adoption not inconsistent with the charter shall continue in force until amended or repealed, and that employees within the scope thereof in office at the time of its adoption shall retain their positions, does not continue the office of city bacteriologist, provided for pursuant to provisions of the old charter establishing a board of health, where the new charter makes no provision for such office or for any board of health, but leaves that subject to be regulated by the general laws in force applicable to all cities whose charters make no special provisions for boards of .health; since the new charter is in no sense an amendment of the old, which is effectually repealed, even though there is no express repealing clause.</p> <p>Municipal Corporations — Officers—Right to Office — Estoppel to Question Right. Upon a proceeding against a city for reinstatement to an office that had been abolished by city charter, it is immaterial that another person had been employed to fill the same position (Dunbar, C. J., and Gose, J., dissenting).</p>