The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-11-26
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
The Seattle School District Case-Bank
Stock Assessment Appeal.

OLYMPIA, Nov 25-ISpeciaL lin passing
upon the petition for rehearing in the case of
the City OF Seattle school district VS.. the board
OF county commissioners of King county, the
supreme court, in an opinion filed today, says:
The petition for rehearins on file in this
case seeks no consideration OF the court decision,
but an enpllncatlon OF IT, as though the petit
ton Tor 8 writ had named the various acts each
offieer was expected TO perform. The difficulty
seems TO be that the officers do not quite under
stand now they are 10 perform the duty required
OF them. That would seem to be matter upon
which they should consult their legal advisers,
but as tnis is case OF singular emergency we
see no objection TO our stating that from the
rather hasty survey of the law which we have
been able 10 make since this case came up, there
can be no difficulty in the auditors correcting
the tax roll so that il shall conform to the facts
although the assessor may have made errors. The
statute (lS9l page Sg0 sec. 53) requires the COM
missioners to furnish the assessor a map of the
county showing the school district boundaries.
This map should have been corrected after the
annexation of June l, and the assessors report
list would have tailed with il when returned.
This not having been done, the auditor from the
Data IN MS possession IN extending the tax should
make the necessary corrections. With real
property there can be no difficulty and with
personality none, If, as required by the statute,
the property lists show the residence OF each
person taxed, since the general rule 10 that per-
sonaity follows the residence of the taxpayer.
II the record shows an exception to this rule.
the rule should not be followed in those cases,
but such other exceptional rule as the cases may
require under the statute
The King county bank taxation cases of Asses
sor Paul VS.. Jacob Furth and ]. II. McGraw were
argued today.
In the case of Distler VS.. Dabney, appealed
from Chehalis, which was reversed by the
supreme court today, an important question of
pleading was passed on. The action was
brought for money had and received, while the
answer set up that the money was paid on a
land contract This the plaintiff admitted in
his reply, but alleged failure on the part OF the
defendant to comply with the contract. The
defendant moved for nonsuit. which the
lower court overruled. The supreme court
holds that the nonsuit should have been granted,
as under the code all common law tictions in
pleading have been abolished and that there
fore the plaintiff should have set forth the ac-
tual facts in the case in his complaint. Having
sued for money had and received the reply was
inconsistent with the complaint, and as the evil
dence did not sustain the latter, the nonsuit
should have been granted.
The judgment in the case of Bertha L. Graetz
ct al. VS.. John Doe Mckenzie ct al, appealed
from Spokane and argued at the last term, was
reversed. This was an action to recover dam
ages for the death OF the husband and father of
the plaintiffs, alleged to have been caused by
the negligence OF the defendants. The court be-
low sustained q demurrer to the complaint on
the ground that the plaintifs had no legal
capacity to sue. There Is a conflict between
sections and III of the code, the former au-
thorizing the heirs or personal representa-
tives to maintain an action for damages
for the death of person from
negligent acts, and the latter section
combining the right of action to personal repre-
sentatives of the deceased. The court decides
that the sections are combinations of the stat
utes in force prior to the adoption of the code,
and that section 8, in its present form, was
passed subsequent to the enactment OF section
ILL., and therefore prevails.
The case of Ellison, respondent, VS.. the North
ern Pacific, appellant appealed from Kit,itas,
involved the same question as that contained in
the last named appeal. The action was brought
under section III and Judgment obtained. The
supreme court reverses the judgment and
orders q dismissal