The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-01-05

eoancsl revoked sid rerrnfs ARss nogiaed rasia-
eies al sad reseeaficn Sah~eaNena 70 aid r.
To<atsoa ard ngssse thereof tha sid eoanesl
made . general order skNs o. he hrss txg %
May, iso aA tsas Yernatfz D. wsthdfaun and
canee1zed. And thai tesss not renaovea On said
Erst asy Of Nav. iSea. b removed by TIE street
commissioner
While the Washington Territory Investment
soEpzax i ere 81 tAa defendants. Il was Bot
saryeG vita either complaint or fnianeGicn. and
therefore Is not hefoEe rs Whether TIE ps2in-
tits have violated arr al their agreements eoa-
tanned in said tent perantk nas nos been raised
fae only qnsstzoa FOR 6ecizioa Is whether the
city council can revoke lis license permitting
the plaintiff "a erees said tenk without asslgn-
Ing aay other feAssn than Ehat pshlie interest,"
requires IL The condition ap0n whieh the Il
ce1se ar permit vax granted. was thar At any
time n the pleasure Of ths e0aaci1 IL coEAd Ne ne
voksd. aad Il Necessary the tent removed by ne
council, and the council vas 70 b the sole Judge
OF the proper time. and under these conditions
the plaintiffs received the license TIE general
order passed by The council does not help the
plaintiffs That order simply notified every one
holding tent license that en- . certain day
each and every license IL revoked and the tents
liable 70 be removed b. the council without any
fErtner notice Il does nos effect the speclei
reEocafon OF the license granted TO the plain
tits Nor does said general order prevent the
council from EeyOking any enc or more Of the
Licenses granted. il in the judgment OF the eeun-
eli Il Is necessary. prior 20 the date mentioned
in said general order 10 wit: May 1. isso II the
facts and the Judgment Of the council justify
such removal.
In the absence 81 any authority u the con
trary, we are not prepared 20 say that cases may
not arise Ia the development and improvement
Of the city, that the council has - noand itself
hand and foot as 70 retard such development or
Improvement. b. rot having the power and
authority 10 remove a tent prior 10 May l. 1s9a
The case a. bar presents features Of hardship.
but the license was accepted with the attending
risk
The council. IN the interest OF the public
good. for no other motive would aetnate public
officials. have decided the necessity for the re-
msvai Of plslntiffs' tent, and that The time has
arrived for such removal.
While thus upholding the authority Of the
council 20 remove plaintiffs tent, we 10 not de-
eide that either the council or any OF il officers
or agents, much less any other, either natural or
artificial person, evict or dfspossess the
plaintiffs in theiriposSesson and enjoyment OF
the land legally demised 20 them without due
process OF Law. should such sn illegal act be
attempted, the plaintiffs have a full and afe-
quate remedy at law against the one so depFtv.
ing them of their rights. aad jury would un-
doubtedly quickly render them fan eompensa-
ton for the wrong inflicted
And now. to-wit; 9Th day Of January,
and complaint dismis sed with costs.
A notice OF appeal TO the supreme court
was gisen.A
Ak INJUNCTION DISSOLVED.
In the case OF the BelIingham Bay Rail-
way & Navigation Company, plaintiff. VS..
the Seattle & West Coast Railroad Com
pany. defendant, the court delivered the
following opinion:
restraining order. J. G. Haines, esq, appearing
for the plaintiff, and Judge Burke appearing for
the defendant restraining order was pro-
cured several months ago ON an ex parte april
cation. Nothing further has been done by
notice or otherwise to prccure an Injunction.
We have before us the complaint on be-
half OF the plaintiff and several affidavits on
behalf of the defendant, leaving practically but
one question, and that is, the act Of congress
permitting the plaintiff to build and erect
bridges over the snohomish, Nooksack and
other rivers.
In the absence of any other authority. either
cited or furnished, the case of the Willamette
| Iron Bridge Company VS.. Hatch, Us Z. s. I,
/ cited by the defendant, is conclusive.
Aud now. to.wit: 4th day of January, 1880,
motion granted and temporary restraining order
dissolved with costs.
INJUNCTION DISSOLVED.
AT midnight Judge Lichtenberg, who
had heard arguments all during the even
| ing on the injunction suit of the Columbia
| & Puget Sound and the Puget Sound shore
roads against De city of Seattle, relating
to the opening Of Post street, dissolved the
| injunction.
NEW seITs FILED.
.Garretson, Woodruff, Pratt & Company
have filed a complaint against H. j.
Mitchell & Company. The suit Is brought
to recover q balance OF $6l0.S5 on debt of
$939.sI for goods aud merchandise sold the
defendants, against whom an attachment
has been issued.
| A suit for foreclosure has been brought
/ by John Costello against X. Gottstein and
Reheeca Gottstein, his wife, 10 recover
| 1892 20. alleged to be due on building ma
| terial furnished the defendants
| The Salmon Bay Lumber Company has
brought suit against Thomas o. Lindsay to
recover $9i9 20, who ii alleges is wrDngfully
keeping in his possession the above sum,
/ collected by him upon his representation
as the eompany's agent The defendant
occupied the Office of general manager and
was one of the trustees The Office was
a