Case Name: The State of Washington, on the Relation of Andrew J. Quigley, Plaintiff, v. The Superior Court for King County et al., Respondents
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1913-01-04
Citations: 71 Wash. 503
Docket Number: No. 10920
Parties: The State of Washington, on the Relation of Andrew J. Quigley, Plaintiff, v. The Superior Court for King County et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 71
Pages: 503–508

Head Matter:
[No. 10920.
En Banc.
January 4, 1913.]
The State of Washington, on the Relation of Andrew J. Quigley, Plaintiff, v. The Superior Court for King County et al., Respondents.
Certiorari — When Lies — Adequacy of Remedy by Appeal — Election Contest. The delay incident to an appeal in an election contest does not authorize a review by certiorari, or render the remedy by appeal inadequate, by reason of the fact that the term of office begins, and the period of six months for preserving the ballots expires before the appeal can be heard; since the ballots can he preserved as other documentary evidence offered and rejected at the trial; and especially in view of the statute providing for appeals in election contests (Mount, C. J., and Fullerton, J., dissenting).
Application for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the superior court for King county, Albertson, J., entered December 12, 1912, denying an application to order a recount in an election contest.
Application denied.
Geo. H. Rummens, for relator,
contended, inter alia, that the writ of review is the proper remedy. State ex rel. Meredith v. Tallman, 24 Wash. 426, 64 Pac. 759; State ex rel. Smith v. Superior Court, 26 Wash. 278, 66 Pac. 385; State ex rel. Royse v. Superior Court, 46 Wash. 616, 91 Pac. 4, 123 Am. St. 948, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1010; Hill v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. App. 307, 114 Pac. 805. An election contest, given to any elector who desires to contest an election, is in the interest of the public and should not be approached captiously, suspiciously, or capriciously by the courts. Searcy v. Grow, 15 Cal. 117; Norwood v. Kenfield, 30 Cal. 393; Keller v. Chapman, 34 Cal. 635; Minor v. Kidder, 43 Cal. 229; Sweeny v. Adams, 141 Cal. 558, 75 Pac. 182. The ballots are the primary and best evidence of the number of votes received by any candidate. 15 Cyc. 425; People ex rel. Budd v. Holden, 28 Cal. 124; Cogian v. Beard, 65 Cal. 58, 2 Pac. 737; Id., 67 Cal. 303, 7 Pac. 738; Tebbe v. Smith, 108 Cal. 101, 41 Pac. 454, 49 Am. St. 68, 29 L. R. A. 673; People ex rel. Keehler v. Robertson, 27 Mich. 116; Edwards v. Logan, 114 Ky. 312, 70 S. W. 852, 75 S. W. 257; Lucas v. Avis, 28 Ky. Law 184, 89 S. W. 1; Kingery v. Berry, 94 Ill. 515; Leonard v. Woolford, 91 Md. 626, 46 Atl. 1025; Garms v. People, 108 Ill. App. 631; Howser v. Pepper, 8 N. D. 484, 79 N. W. 1018; Caldwell v. McElvain, 184 Ill. 552, 56 N. E. 1012. Malconduct does not necessarily mean fraudulent conduct; making mistakes in counting is malconduct. Hadley v. Gutridge, 58 Ind. 302; Coglan v. Beard and Sweeny v. Adams, supra. When the integrity of the ballots has been established, they should be received without any other evidence. People v. Holden, Coglan v. Beard, Tebbe v. Smith, Kingery v. Berry, Edwards v. Logan, and Leonard v. Woolford, supra; Langley v. Head, 142 Cal. 368, 75 Pac. 1088; Abbott v. Hartley, 143 Cal. 484, 77 Pac. 410; Clanton v. Ryan, 14 Colo. 419, 24 Pac. 258; Catron v. Craw, 164 Ill. 20, 46 N. E. 3; Reynolds v. State ex rel. Titus, 61 Ind. 392; Hudson v. Solomon, 19 Kan. 177; Gantt v. Brown, 238 Mo. 560, 142 S. W. 422; People v. McClellan, 191 N. Y. 341, 84 N. E. 68.
W. H. White, Kitt Gould, and Edgar C. Snyder, for respondents.
Reported in 129 Pac. 83.

Opinion:
Ellis, J.
On December 13, 1912, the relator procured, upon ex parte application, a writ of certiorari, to review the proceedings of the superior court of King county in an action to contest an election. On the return day fixed by the writ, the respondent, Byron Phelps, moved to quash the writ on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Briefly, the ruling sought to be reviewed is the action of the trial'court in refusing to order a recount of the ballots until some proof aliunde the ballot boxes should be made tending to impeach the regularity or integrity of the official count and canvass.
It is contended that certiorari will not lie, because the statute governing election contests accords an adequate remedy by appeal. Rem. & Bal. Code, § 4956. The relator argues that the remedy by appeal would not be adequate, for the reason that the eontestee would take office on January 13, 1913, and would hold the office a number of months before an appeal could be heard, and that the six months during which the ballots will be preserved under the statute (Rem. & Bal. Code, § 4928), would expire and the ballots would be destroyed before a retrial could be had. This argument is not convincing. The same result would follow in every case of election contest if it would follow in this case, and the section of the statute giving the appeal would be nugatory. But no such result need follow in any case. Documentary and physical evidence when properly offered may, although rejected, be preserved and made exhibits in the case. The same facilities exist for the preservation in the statement of facts of evidence offered and rejected as of that received. The remedy by appeal would be as adequate in this as in any other election contest. The delay would be no greater than in an appeal in a case of any other character, and we have repeatedly held that the delay incident to an appeal cannot be regarded as affecting the adequacy of the remedy. Jones v. Paul, 56 Wash. 355, 105 Pac. 625; State ex rel. Young v. Denney, 34 Wash. 56, 74 Pac. 1021; State ex rel. Nelson v. Superior Court, 31 Wash. 32, 71 Pac. 601; State ex rel. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Superior Court, 46 Wash. 303, 89 Pac. 879; State ex rel. Carrau v. Superior Court, 30 Wash. 700, 71 Pac. 648. Where the remedy by appeal is adequate, certiorari or other extraordinary remedy will not lie. State ex rel. Coplen v. Superior Court, 66 Wash. 225, 119 Pac. 383; State ex rel. Vincent v. Benson, 21 Wash. 571, 58 Pac. 1066; State ex rel. Washington Dredging & Imp. Co. v. Moore, 21 Wash. 629, 59 Pac. 505; State ex rel. Hibbard & Co. v. Superior Court, 21 Wash. 631, 59 Pac. 505; State ex rel. Townsend Gas & El. L. Co. v. Superior Court, 20 Wash. 502, 55 Pac. 933.
The legislature, in enacting § 4956, providing the remedy by appeal in election contests in the very same statute allowing a contest, must be presumed to have considered that remedy adequate in such cases. To hold that it is inadequate in this case is to hold that it is inadequate in any such case. It is, in effect, to repeal the statute, and declare a policy contrary to that expressly declared by the legislature upon a subject clearly within its province.
The decisions of this court cited by the relator are not pertinent to the case here. State ex rel. Meredith v. Tallman, 24 Wash. 426, 64 Pac. 759; State ex rel. Royse v. Superior Court, 46 Wash. 616, 91 Pac. 4, 123 Am. St. 948, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1010. In each of these cases the remedy by appeal was held inadequate because, and only because, the term of office would expire before the hearing on appeal could be had. No such condition is found in the case before us. The other case cited, State ex rel. Smith v. Superior Court, 26 Wash. 278, 66 Pac. 385, rests upon the same ground, namely, that the remedy by appeal was inadequate to preserve the fruits of the litigation if won.
The proceedings in contest here presented are not in quo warranto, either as at common law or as given by our analogous statutory action. The right to a contest such as here sought to be reviewed rests solely upon, and is governed by, the provisions of the particular statute providing therefor. Rém. & Bal. Code, § 4941 to 4957, inclusive. The section giving the remedy by appeal has never been repealed, either expressly or by implication. To entertain this writ, in the absence of anything distinguishing the proceedings from other election contests brought under the statute, would be a gratuitous assumption of the legislative function.
The motion to quash is granted, and the application is denied.
Parker, Crow, Main, Morris, Chadwick, and Gose, JJ., concur.