Case Name: The State of Washington, on the Relation of P. H. Lack, Appellant, v. John F. Meads, Respondent
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1908-05-28
Citations: 49 Wash. 468
Docket Number: No. 7282
Parties: The State of Washington, on the Relation of P. H. Lack, Appellant, v. John F. Meads, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 468–469

Head Matter:
[No. 7282.
Decided May 28, 1908.]
The State of Washington, on the Relation of P. H. Lack, Appellant, v. John F. Meads, Respondent.
Appeal — Decisions Review able — Amount in Controversy. An appeal from a judgment dismissing an action for a writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of a city warrant for the sum of $140.75 will he dismissed for the reason that the original amount in controversy is not within the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Pierce county, Clifford, J., entered September 28, 1907, dismissing an action for a mandamus, after a trial on the merits before the court.
Appeal dismissed.
L. C. Whitney, for appellant.
C. M. Riddell, J. W. Quick, and C. E. Dunkleberger, for respondent.
Reported in 95 Pac. 1022.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Some time prior to the 11th day of May, 1907, the city of Tacoma purchased sand and gravel from one C. D. Elmore, of the value of $140.75, for which amount a claim was presented to the city council. After the presentation of the claim, but before its allowance, the claim was assigned to the relator Lack. After the assignment to Lack, the city council allowed the claim as presented, and credited the amount on an unpaid judgment held by the city against Elmore. The relator thereupon demanded a warrant for the amount of the claim from the city comptroller, and upon the refusal of that officer to issue the warrant, this action was brought in mandamus to compel such issuance. From a judgment dismissing the mandamus proceeding, this appeal is prosecuted.
The respondent has moved to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the original amount in controversy is not sufficient to bring the case within the appellate jurisdiction of this court. We so held in State ex rel. Plaisie v. Cole, 40 Wash. 474, 82 Pac. 749, and State ex rel. Ide v. Coon, 40 Wash. 682, 82 Pac. 993.
On the authority of these cases the appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.