Robertson v. Shine, 50 Wn. 433, 97 P. 497. See, also, Russell v. B. Schade Brewing Co., 49 Wn. 362, 95 P. 327; Codd v. Von Der Ahe, 92 Wn. 529, 159 P. 686; Shaughnessy v. Northland Steamship Co., 94 Wn. 325, 162 P. 546, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 655; State ex rel. Echtle v. Card, 148 Wn. 270, 268 P. 869, 59 A.L.R. 519; State v. Crockett, 158 Wn. 152, 290 P. 873; State ex rel. Crockett v. Sutton, 159 Wn. 307, 293 P. 469; State ex rel. Mountain Development Co. v. Superior Court, 190 Wn. 183, 67 P.2d 861; State v. Lambert, 199 Wn. 367, 91 P.2d 1023; State v. Diamond Tank Transport, Inc., 200 Wn. 206, 93 P.2d 313. The 1939 act became effective prior to the entry of the judgment and hence is controlling of the method and amount of assistance.
It is noted that this case has withstood the test of time as it was recently approved in Glass v. Windsor Nav. Co., supra. The case was further followed in State v. Lambert, 199 Wn. 367, 91 P.2d 1023 (1939); Dux v. Hostetter, 37 Wn.2d 550, 225 P.2d 210 (1950); Morley v. Morley, 130 Wn. 77, 226 P. 132 (1924). Manifestly, these statutes contemplate an orderly procedure.