Beagle v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 21125.
| Decision Date | 16 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 21125.,21125. |
| Citation | 32 F. Supp. 17 |
| Parties | BEAGLE v. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Evert Arnold and Eggerman & Rosling, all of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff.
Robert S. Macfarlane, Dean H. Eastman, and Earl F. Requa, all of Seattle, Wash., for defendant.
This is a law action, commenced in the state court and removed here, to recover damages for personal injuries for negligence, in which defendant pleaded among other things a release, and plaintiff replied that the release was procured by fraud. Defendant moves to have the issue of fraudulent release tried by the court without a jury as in equity separately from and before the other issues at law are tried.
In the practice under the Code pleading of this state, it has long been approved procedure for plaintiff in this kind of a law action to allege by reply that the release pleaded in defendant's answer was procured by fraud and to have that issue of fraud tried as a legal issue by the jury along with the other legal issues in the case. Sanford v. Royal Ins. Co., 11 Wash. 653, 663, 664, 40 P. 609; Bjorklund v. Seattle Electric Co., 35 Wash. 439, 77 P. 727, 1 Ann.Cas. 443; Mattson v. Eureka Cedar Lumber Co., 79 Wash. 266, 140 P. 377; Hopkins v. Lotus Cafe, 161 Wash. 493, 297 P. 178; Myers v. Weyerhaeuser, 197 Wash. 407, 85 P.2d 1091. In fact that issue has by such long usage and practice come to be regarded as much legal as equitable.
About forty years ago Judge Hanford in Hill v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., C.C., 104 F. 754, seems to have resolved this question in favor of the defendant's motion for trial before the court without a jury but I am sure that in recent years the practice in the federal court here has usually followed that in the state court of submitting this issue of fraudulent release to the jury along with all the other legal issues at the close of all the evidence in the case. The recent case of Hollingsworth v. General Petroleum Corp., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 917, relied upon by defendant, may be distinguishable on the ground that the court was there merely applying the established rule of the Oregon District Court. But whether distinguishable or not, I do not think the rule of that case should be applied in this one removed here from our state court where the rule is clearly against the Hollingsworth case, especially in view of what I believe to be the common practice in recent years of following in the federal court here the state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California v. Kielhorn
...D.C.Or. 1939, 26 F.Supp. 917. Contra: Ross v. Service Lines, Inc., D.C.E.D.Ill. 1940, 31 F.Supp. 871; Beagle v. Northern Pac. R. Co., D.C.W.D.Wash. 1940, 32 F.Supp. 17. This case is another of the instances in which a litigant, in federal court because of diversity of citizenship, has his r......
-
Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
...D.C.Or.,1939, 26 F.Supp. 917. Contra: Ross v. Service Lines, Inc., D.C.E.D.Ill.,1940, 31 F.Supp. 871; Beagle v. Northern Pac. R. Co., D.C. W.D.Wash.,1940, 32 F.Supp. 17. This case is another of the instances in which a litigant, in federal court because of diversity of citizenship, has his ......