, 1892-01-07
VS.. HUMES
A PETITION DENIED In A KING
COUNTY CASE.


The Petitioners AIlege the Action
Of the Judge of the Lower Cour
was In Excess of His Jurisdic
tEon.
TContinued from Wednesdays paper
The proposition above referred to is this
The said act amending section 1O9 did no
go into effect until some ten months afte
the rendition of the judgment in question
and it is contended by petitioners that III
asmuch as under said section 100 as i
stood at the time Of the rendition of thei
Judgment, the relief hereunder was con
fined tofive months That at the expira
ton OF that time their interest in sale
Judgment became a vested one SO far a.
said section 109 is concerned, and thai
thereafter no amendment of said section
could affect their rights.
With this contention, however, I cannot
agree. Their right in the Judgment die
not become vested until the cOurtshad lost
all power to relieve against the same
whether under section 100, OF any othel
provision of the code, and not being vested
it was competent for the legislature to ex.
tend or change the time within which il
could be attacked in the court where rem
dered by any legislation which it thought
It is contended on the part of the peti-
tioners that the act amending said section
109 is void for the reason that the subject
of such act is not clearly expressed in the
title, and that if the first clause of said
title can be held to sufficiently state the
object Of the act 50 far as it related to
pleadings, the change made in section 1O9
relating to the time in which the court
might vacate a judgment was not within
such title, as is had no relation to the ques-
ton of pleading I think however, that
as the provision as to vacating of iudg-
ment was part of the original section 1O9,
which was contained in the chapter relat-
ing to pleadings, and as the relief sought
hereunder is always obtained by the filing
of some pleading, or other paper in the
nature of pleading it is sufficiently ger
name to the subject to stand as a part OF an
act relating to pleadings, and if the first
part of said title sufficiently indicates the
subject matter to authorize legislation up
on the subject of.pleadings, the provisions
enacted hereunder are valid and binding
as a part of the laws of this state.
/ am of the opinion that said act can be
thus sustained, but assuming for the pur-
pose of this discussion that the first por-
ton of said title had been entirely omitted
and the act was simply entitled can act
to amend sections rs, n and 109 of the code
of Washington of 1881, : very important
the sections in question if enacted under
such a title would be valid and binding.
This inquiry presents two important points
for determination. First is there such a
thing known to the law Of this state as the
code of 1881; and, second, if there is such
code can section thereof be amended by
an act under title which simply provides
for the amendment Of such section by its
number without any designation Of the
subject matter of the section to be amend
ed2 In my opinion the first proposition is
too clear for extended argument In fact,
/ do not understand the counsel for petit
tioners to have directly raised this ques-
ton in the discussion here, but it has
been raised in discussions heretofore
had III regard to the sufficiency Of
titles to acts referring thereto, / think it
best that it should be here decided. The
legislature which revised and re-enacted
the laws which now constitute such code
provided that the laws thus revised and
re-enacted should be arranged and consec-
utively sectionized from first to last, and
that such laws when so placed and num-
bered in single body should constitute
the code, and / can see no reason why their
will thus ex pressed should not have force.
Beside, from that time to this the legisIa-
ture, by constant reference to said body of
laws as the "code Of 1884," have clearly
shown their adoption of the same as such
was no such thing as the code of 1881 would,
in my opinion, do violence to every rule of
judicial Interpretation Of legislative acts.
We now come to the consideration of the
second question above suggested. 1t is
contended on the part of the petitioners
that this question has been decided ad-
yersely to the validity Of such title by the
supreme court of the territory of Wash
ington, and they cite the case of Harland
vs.. the Territory Of Washington, WASH
Ter. 131, as conclusive upon the question.
Such contention, doubtless, is warranted
by the decision in said cause, and if the
same is accepted as the settled law of the
state, titles Of this kind are clearly INSULT
cient. 1t is with great reluctance that this
court proceeds to re-examine a question
which has been fairly presented, and de-
cided by the supreme court of the territory
of Washington and were it not for some
special circumstances surrounding the de-
cisiOn of the case in question, we should
hesitate long before re-examining the ques-
ton there decided, and should probably
conclude to follow the same without such
re-examination. But when we take into
consideration the fact that the whole court
as then constituted was equally divided
upon the questions therein. decided and
that the decision was only made possible
by the fact that in that particular
case one Of the judges of the court was IN
Cd dp6CiGdGcu lIOLl SlbJlllB, ,dllu buGluIbleT ldCL
that had exactly the same case arisen in GER
tain other districts of the territory, con-
trary conclusion would have been arrived
at, this court would hardly be justified in
blindlv following and accepting as the law
OF this state the decision of half of said SUI
preme court, which constituted majority
of those sitting in that particular case. The
reputation for learning and ability of the
judges who rendered the majority opinions
in said cause, however, are such that their
decision is entitled to much weight, and
were we not convinced that the court
which decided that cause was much less ia
vorably situated for a full Investigation of
the question in the light of the authorities,
than in this court, we might rest upon the
able argument of such opinions and save
ourselves the labor Of a reinvestiga-
ton, but in view of the fact, that at that
time very few books were accessible to the
court, and that large number of the cases
cited in said opinion are said to have been
so cited from digests thereof rather than
from the cases themselves; while this court
has the opportunity to fully examine all
on the same subject, I think. we cannot
nghtfully escape such hre-examination. Be-
side the decision in that case was based
upon the limitations contained in the or
ganic act OF the territory, while our deci-
sion must now be based upon the constitu-
tion of the state.
To be Continued.
rfe Graphic.
naval er1ooar, of f<,1