TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. Hill v. Superior Court

The State of Washington, on the relation of George L. Hill v. The Superior Court of King County, State of Washington

State ex rel. Hill v. Superior Court, 30 P. 82 (Wash. 1892)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Washington Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 20, 1892
Docket
No. 596
Judges
Hoyt
Citations
30 P. 824 Wash. 3271892 Wash. LEXIS 223
Syllabus
MANDAMUS — PABTIES. Mandamus will not lie to compel two of the three judges of the superior court of King County, State of Washington, to perform certain acts, for the reason that, if it takes all of the judges of the court to do the act, all must be necessary parties, while if anyone could do the act, the one whose duty was to act should have been proceeded against alone.
Summary
Original Application for Mandamus.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hoyt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Hoyt, J. —

By this proceeding relator seeks to compel the superior court of King county, and two of the judges thereof, to perform certain acts set out in his petition. There are three judges of the superior court of King county, and it is clear either that it takes all of them to make a complete court, and when action of the court is sought the proceeding must be against them all, or that any one of them constitutes a court when sitting as such, and can do any act in a case properly before him within *328 the power of the court. Upon either of these suppositions the petition herein is insufficient. If it takes all of the judges to do the act, then they were all necessary parties to this proceeding. If anyone could do it, then the one whose duty it was to act should have been singled out, and the proceeding had against him alone. The rule is well settled in cases of this kind that the proceeding must be had against the officer whose duty it is to act, and that the petitioner must at his peril proceed against the proper officer; he cannot proceed against several officers, and ask the court to decide as between them which one should perform the act.

The petition for the alternative writ of momdamus must be denied.

Anders, O. J., and Dunbar, Stiles and Scott, JJ. concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1893: 11904: 11910: 11912: 11917: 11918: 11920: 11921: 11924: 11935: 118932026peak 1893 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gerard-Fillio Co. v. McNair123 P. 462 (Wash. 1912)
  2. Thill v. Johnston111 P. 225 (Wash. 1910)
  3. Woolen v. Sloan162 P. 985 (Wash. 1917)
  4. Clements v. Cook191 P. 874 (Wash. 1920)
  5. McInnis v. Watson200 P. 578 (Wash. 1921)
  6. City Mortgage Co. v. Diller40 P.2d 164 (Wash. 1935)

Most recent

  1. City Mortgage Co. v. Diller40 P.2d 164 (Wash. 1935)
  2. Cameron v. Purbaugh227 P. 858 (Wash. 1924)
  3. McInnis v. Watson200 P. 578 (Wash. 1921)
  4. Clements v. Cook191 P. 874 (Wash. 1920)
  5. McKay v. Meyer174 P. 13 (Wash. 1918)
  6. Woolen v. Sloan162 P. 985 (Wash. 1917)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list