Court Opinion

ID: 9573393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:54:08.952538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:51.603827
License: Public Domain

Foster, J.
(concurring)—While I agree fully with all that is said in the court’s opinion, it is appropriate to state an additional reason for my concurrence.
The statute upon which the departmental opinion relies (RCW 7.20.010) is a territorial act (Code of 1881, § 725, p. 151; Code of 1877, § 730, p. 147; Code of 1869, § 667, p. 167; Rem. Rev. Stat., § 1049.) Before statehood, the statute was valid because the territorial courts were of legislative creation, and could even be abolished by legislative action. After the adoption of the constitution, the government was divided into three coordinate branches, and jurisdiction was conferred upon the superior court by Art. IV, § 6, and jurisdiction .of this court conferred by Art. IV, § 4. Thereafter, the legislature had no power to enlarge or diminish the *585jurisdiction of either. North Bend Stage Line v. Department of Public Works, 170 Wash. 217, 16 P. (2d) 206.
Territorial statutes repugnant to the subsequently adopted constitution were thereby abrogated. Duncan Township v. Stayr, 106 Wash. 514, 180 Pac. 476.