The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1901-04-02

Mr Y. d. Palmer said L am not
IN the least surprised by the decision
rendered hN the circuit court. Had
I been Judge OF that cause. as pre-
aeuted. should most certainly have
decided the question in the same
manner. As the ease WAS present
ell for the city there could have been
NO other decision. unless the Judge
had taken it upan himself tn search
cut the good points OF the ease foe
the city | consider that not one
az the essential points 81 the ease
have been presented O. the court
am surprised that b. should have
been 50 willing 70 rush that case on
the one point e the gaa company
being estouprd FROM claiming Il per
retual franchise ~ reason uf Us at
tnrneya having bad part Boa prr-
pairing ordinance ff50 Especially
am ! surprised when II 10 known
that ne was attorney for the appel
liant IN the ease Of Skandhie vs.
Mover. n Wash. -. wherein he
succeeded ia establishing the exact
opposite 81 the proposition advanced
~ him IN this case.
Now here ~ an abstract ~ the
brief submitted by che corporation
counsel Ia this gas case. An exam
nation Of the authorities there clt-
81 Will show that almost nome ~
them are in point and that the hfivf
itself has mo bearing 0n "A question
Of construction q tho frnnrhiad o.
question;
The Brirf
l. tie who socks equity must do
equity. Complainant must eume
inzo court With eieau hands
since Burke. =. A. Mo. attorneys
faF the complainant cuuuiVed iu the
passing 81 ordinance No. et10 thf
complainant whe asks that That or
dlnRnCe be- declared void does rot
cafns with clean hands
Citins~ios u. =. as ~ Wall. ga
q Fed lsi Is " " 500
2 Ordinance Ne. Gao - a eontrart
settling forth the rights 81 the com
nlainaut Complainant was PARTY
"a that contract. and ia now eatopp.
81 20 deny the validity Of the same
Citing 81 HIGH saii IS Ky 40
Monrorl tes q y. =. 10. u Hun
tsS 30 Mo. -
4 on sHtoppie nee Herman on -
toppie and res tudlcata. sec. 81.
n have followed this raHa vags
carefully from the frat and know
that IN no part aof she whole ear
have the real points hreu prnheute.
90 the court IN any manner.
ION examination 81 the opinion
rendered BY che circuit court VII
disclose the fact that no part % N.
franchise wrna construed To BE- sur
the court does mention a part u a.
FIRST section uf saeh oVdlnance tr
the effect that the grantees name
were authorized and empowered a.
erect. establish and have IN opera.
ton within the corporate limits ~
the city ~ Seattle All ~
the uecesssrv huiiiiugn etc
and hs their option. % lay down
gas pipes and extend the scryice 81
gas throughout tho said citwfuf gr-
attic. and throughout any additions
that may hereafter be made 60 the
said city
Meaning Of words.
The court CONSTITUTES these words
20 amount 90 a grant IN perpetuity
But those ere not the granting
words 81 that section Those words
do not limit the estate granted.
1T IS ONLY THE FOLLOW
INC PARTIES WHO ARE Az
THOHIZED AND EMPOWERED
20 DO the above things. Dexter Hor-
ton. A. a. Denny. John Collins aud
Charles Z. burrows AND THEIR
ASSOCIATES. ASSIGNS. SUCCESS.
SOWS or TX ECrTORS
Now these words associates. as
signs. succeasurs or executors are
only such words aH we're necessary
TO create the estate for rs years.
which limit ~ the life u the grant
In the following clause There are
no words anvVs here In the grant In
dicatinR perpetuity. There are no
such words a. heirs. 'psrpetuaiiy'
or forever
At common law the technical
word heirs was absolutely ueeea-
aary to create an estate for more
than life. Thus In the case 81 sedr.
wick -. Laften, 10 Allen. go the
granting words were 20 A 81 and
his Successors and assigns forever
and yet it was held that these words
were only sufficient 10 create "a life