Docket No. 1257
Decided: Wednesday, March 28th, 1894
Opinion: 8 Wash. 659 (1894)
Court: Dunbar1 Court (1893-1894)
Dunbar
Anders
Hoyt
Scott
Stiles
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Undetermined votes indicate that the opinion(s) have not been evaluated yet.
STATE v. CITY OF CENTRALIA, 8 Wash. 659; 36 P. 484 (1894).
No. 1257.
SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON March 28, 1894, Decided Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County.
Court: Judgment affirmed.
Counsel: A. E. Rice, and Miller Murdoch, for appellant. G. T. Swasey, for respondents.
Judge(s) HOYT, J. DUNBAR, C. J., and SCOTT, J., concur. STILES, J., and ANDERS, J., concurring.
Opinion By: HOYT HOYT, J.--Many questions were presented in this case not involved in that of The City of Pullman v. Hungate, ante, p. 519, and it is probable that the action of the court below in sustaining the legality of the incorporation of the defendant could be sustained without the aid of the act of March 9, 1893 (Laws, p. 183), but the conclusion to which we have come, as shown in the case just cited, as to the effect of that act makes it unnecessary for us to discuss the other questions presented by the record.
The judgment of the superior court must be affirmed.
DUNBAR, C. J., and SCOTT, J., concur. $125STILES; ANDERS$130 STILES, J. (concurring).--For the reasons given by me in Pullman v. Hungate, I should dissent in this case. But I am very much in doubt whether the act of 1888 (Laws, p. 221) was void as to this corporation, which had a valid, legal existence as a corporation by special act, and merely undertook to re-incorporate under the law of 1888. See ยง 26, p. 231, and Burlington v. Leebrick, 43 Iowa 252, and I shall therefore concur in the result.
ANDERS, J.--I concur in the above.