The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-02-24

Decision I'm Favor of Seattle In TIT
scurry Gaze Anrmed.

Decision in Favor of Seattle In the
scurry Gaze Affirmed.
OLYMPIA, Feb. 23.-fSpecial.l Opinions
in the following cases were filed in the
supreme court today;
State of Washington. respondent, W.
William G. Eddor. appellant, from lincoln
county; judgment affirmed.
City OF Spokane, appellant, vs.. ]. J.
Browne e. TX, respondent. from Spokane;
judgment reversed and amount claimed by
appellant allowed.
Nellie NJ. Scurry, appellant, vs.. city OF
Seattle, respondent. This action was
brought by appellant for damages alleged
10 have been sustained by the grading OF
certain street In the superior court
judgment was rendered for the city. Ii IS
conceded in the case that the claim for
damages was not presented in accordance
win the requirements OF section s. OF
article of the charter, but the appellant
claims that this section IS unconsiitutiona al
because in contravention OF the laws OF the
state concerning limitations of actions.
Section 10, article IL of the state constitu-
ton provides that cities Of q certain class,
including Seattle, shall be permitted
to frame charters. The supreme
court concludes that the iimiia-
o. claims for damages against the city Is
consistent with the constitution. lit Is
true that under the laws OF the state an
action of this kind could be brought
within three years, but IL has never been
held that even statute which made pro-
visions for the presentation of claim
within q certain time was in any way a
contrayention OF the statute OF limitations
With references to the commencement OF
actions"
Section 500 Of the General Statutes, in
relation 10 cities of the second class, pro-
vides that all accounts and demands
against such city other than as are charge
able to the school fund must be presented
to the city council within one year from
date the same accrued. 1t follows then
from the powers given by the constitution
to the city TO iegislate in all proper sub
jecfs of legislation, that If section $50
above referred TO is not in conflict with
the general law of limitation, section 80 Of
the charter can be sustained for the same
reason. The Limitation of an action and q
provision in statute or charter for the
manner of time of presenting claim are
different propositions, nowise conflicting,
provided the time allowed for presenting
the claim is within the statute of iimita-
tons. While il is true In this case that
the damages accrued before the adoption
| of the freehoiders charter, it is equally
true that more than six months elapsed
from the adoption of the charter before
preme court believing six months q rea-
sonable time and the charter provisions
| constitutional affirmed judgment of the
! superior court
| Sarah A. Robinson, appellant. vs.. Annie
| G. Halter ct al. respondents; from King.
| This case involved the question: Can a
| nonresident plaintiff, where the action is
| against several defendants, be compelled
/ TO furnish a separate bond for costs to
| each defendant. The court held that the
action of the lower court requiring addi.
| tional bonds and dismissing the action for
| noncompliance with order is erroneous,
| and the decision is reversed.
| /. ID. Ford. appellant. VS.. u. E. Durie.
| respondent; from King; petition for re-
hearing; denied.
Tacoma Building and Savings Associa-
| ton, appellant, We. Thomas NJ. Clark, re-
| spondent; from Pierce; reversed.
James Dignan. respondent. VS.. William
III. Moore. appellant: from King; affirmed.
| John klosterman, respondent, vs.. Mason
| County Central Railroad Company and
Allen c: Mason, appellant; from Mason
| reversed