Case ID: wash_12/html/0629-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dunbar, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[ No. 1892.
    Decided September 27, 1895.]
    The State of Washington, on the Relation of A. S. Ruth, Respondent, v. Thomas Prather et al., Appellants.
    
    COUNTY SURVEYORS—RECORD OF HIGHWAY SURVEYS—CONSTRUCTION OP STATUTE.
    County surveyors are not authorized, under the provisions of the act relating to county surveyors (Laws 1895, p. 135), to collect and perfect the field notes, construction notes and plats of surveys of highways in the county and record same in his office, nor can he render the county liable to him for compensation for the performance of such services. (Gordon, J., dissents.)
    
      Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County.
    
    
      Mandamus by the relátor, as county surveyor of Thurston county, to compel the board of commissioners to audit and allow his claim for collecting, perfecting and recording field notes, construction notes and plats of surveys on county highways, which notes and surveys had been executed prior to his term of office, and were in the possession of the county, but had not theretofore been recorded in his office. From a judgment for the relator, the commissioners appeal.
    
      Milo A. Root, for appellants.
    
      Troy & Falknor, for respondent.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dunbar, J.

This case involves simply the construction of a statute and admits of very little discussion. We think, however, that construing of § 8, ch. 77, Laws 1895, p. 137, which provides that “ all field notes,” etc., “shall be collected by the surveyor, perfected and recorded in his office in the same manner as records of surveys are required to be made by the provisions of this act,” in connection with §5 of the same act, which excepts from the record which the surveyor is authorized to make, surveys of highways, the construction placed upon the statute by the lower court is not justified, and that the exception in § 5 must be considered to apply also to the provisions of § 8.

The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded to the lower court with instructions to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.

Hoyt, G. J., and Anders and Scott, JJ., concur.

Gordon, J., dissents.