Court Opinion

ID: 9885717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 13:12:48.425694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:56.456714
License: Public Domain

Foster, J.
(concurring in the dissent) — I concur in the views of Chief Justice Hill. The construction placed upon this statute by In re Knight’s Estate, 31 Wn. (2d) 813, 199 P. (2d) 89, became as much a part of the statute as if the words had been added by legislative enactment. Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 92 L. Ed. 840, 68 S. Ct. 665. Subsequent change is exclusively a legislative prerogative. After the legislature has four times rejected proposals to overturn the rule of the Knight case, the court should not now do so. My reasons for this conclusion are stated in detail in Windust v. Department of Labor & Industries, ante p. 33, 323 P. (2d) 241.
July 3, 1958. Petition for rehearing denied.