Court Opinion

ID: 9550498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:36:06.673383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:39.823313
License: Public Domain

Mallery, J.
(concurring) — The demurrer should have been sustained. The plaintiffs have no right to maintain their action under the declaratory judgment act or at all.
RCW 7.24.020, Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), § 784-2, provides:
. “A person interested under a deed, will, written contract or othér writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.” (Italics mine.)
The key word in the above italicized language is right. This court unanimously held in Kitsap County v. Bremer-ton, 46 Wn. (2d) 362, 281 P. (2d) 841, that one attacking the validity of an act must show that its enforcement operates as an infringement on the complaining party’s constitutional rights; and without such a showing, the validity of an act cannot be questioned. De Grief v. Seattle, 50 Wn. (2d) 1, 297 P. (2d) 940, Adams v. Walla Walla, 196 Wash. 268, 82 P. (2d) 584, Washington Beauty College v. Huse, 195 Wash. 160, 80 P. (2d) 403.
The city’s parking meters are in place, and the right to maintain them is not questioned. The addition of the ad*634vertising matter does .not involve a private right of the respondent. He cannot litigate a political matter: falling within the charter powers of the city without alleging special damages. . .
I concur in the result.
December 4, 1958. Petition for rehearing denied;