The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-11-18
sFnssr GRADE CASE.
y 0ae1ng upen the atatute q Lan-
1tatloaa.

ttatioas.
Nn4Ge LanR1ey was occupied much Of
eedAy trying . point Of Law raised for
& - hrof time In this state but N To
etch there has been different ruling
q nesf 81 the states. II arose IN a street
oee assessment case. city Of Seattle Va.
Wosfs II seems that Denos street
- erAded about Ies7. and Do wolfs's
1e(oftv vas charged with part Of the
~ For some reason which does not
0por upon the record. the city attorney
ths tins ala not bring any suit against
WeIse. undor = recent decision Of the
Nreme court Of this state. II IN held
~ Two yearn u the limit within which
- efAde suits can b brought. when
- attorneys now In charge OF these
entsred on their work they made
y 11seovery that no suit had ever been
enced and had been overlooked In
way. but u WAS then four pears
- the time when action could be COM
Aenc~d In 1856 however. the ssass leg
ltnfs had passed Law declaring that
- actions must DO brought within ten
- after the cause Of tho action shall
~ accrued. The statute declared that
- was no law on the subject. II was
4fmined BY the eity's counsel TO make
eaert TO collect under that law. TO
eh defendant demurrcd. pleading the
.otory provision Of two years.
ne demurrer WAS argued yesterday.
- several defendants being represented
oeruvo. Allen. Hughes = NcMi.ken:
a Snman. KsilAhsr h Emory. aud Pres
= Aibsrtscn. The city was repre-
- BY Pratt Z Riddle. The defsnss
I'D with bgtse statement showing
the statute o. two years had long
eeGun IN run. C.. A. Rtdd,A on be-
- % the city. replied that the statute
oed ~ such case must BE- the stat
y force At the time Of the plea. that
teeis1Aturs had the power TO create
- cs restore > lost remedy. and to
= retroactive. provided Il aid not
VIVA with = vested right. He cited
e!esftties from Lord Eden to the Unit
Hatss supreme court In ms 70 show
Ue1 remedy lost by complete bar OF
- etatute could be restored except In
sess where title or other vested rixht
hAa besn acquired under the statusA a
eve Grsds assessment. he argued. was
! eepe. ard no man had such a right 70
insanity from payment ~ the legssla-
~ ooead not In tts wisdom. aud In far
s 50 q justice. take away from him.
eentsed that there was q difference
loa but that harmony In the al
sauon at the law required that
.sss courts should follow the decision Of
e. sAess court In the country,
-. Aelleher claimed that the bar hav-
ears become complete. no subsequent
suea could remove It., He denied
49, ta.s vas = mere debt which was
- 70 % recovered. II was a proceed
= fcreciose = lien and compel the
r.. :. % defend his title to the property.
AIncrtsen followed on the aame side.
S.ss that tho intentien OF the iexis-
- was not TO make the act retroac.
wi satiresy prospective. and quoted
tse oct TO show that actions were
cesun Within ten years after the as
49, as NshAti have been made; not
hae been made
a.. - eocsy thought the act was re,roac-
s.ss.. saa thas probably an action on tho
- - contract might be maintained.
s-s. ~ preceding affected the title 10
VI and consequently the suit for
- ase coait no; DO maintained
H'aese-We dc not d<spsate the title:
coaspsaias declares the defendant 20
Langley continued that the su-
car OF this stats has decided
ne Two years. lirnls aprsles. ana sns
Soass was hound ey that stesrisson
Assenss 70 that of another turtsaie-
II. ne demurrer VAS sustained.
ssase gave notice Of appeal