Carpenter v. Ritchie

• Decision Date: 01 July 1891
• Citation: 2 Wash. 512,28 P. 380
• Parties: CARPENTER v. RITCHIE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

28 P. 380

2 Wash. 512

CARPENTER v. RITCHIE.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 1, 1891

Appeal from superior court, King county; T. J. HUMES, Judge.

Action by John Carpenter against Willis A. Ritchie on a judgment obtained in Kansas. Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon a verdict for plaintiff. Affirmed.

G. E. M. Pratt and Thompson, Edsen &amp Humphries, for appellant.

Allen & Powell, for respondent.

SCOTT J.

This action was brought by respondent to recover on a judgment which he claimed to have obtained against the appellant in the district court of Cowley county, Kan. It will require a somewhat extended statement to present the points raised. The amended complaint alleges: "(1) That during all the times herein stated the district court of the thirteenth judicial district of the state of Kansas, in and for the county of Cowley, was a court of general jurisdiction, duly created and organized by the laws of said state. (2) That on the 22d day of May, 1889, this plaintiff commenced an action against the said defendant in the justice court for the city of Winfield, Cowley county, Kansas, before J. VAN DE WATER justice of the peace, to recover the sum of $268.78, with interest, which was due this plaintiff by the defendant upon a certain promissory note, together with costs of suit; that on the 22d day of May, 1889, a summons was duly and regularly issued out of said court, and was on the same day, to-wit, May 22, 1889, served on the defendant, Willis A. Ritchie, personally, by the proper officer of said court; that on the 25th day of May, 1889, said cause came on regularly to be heard; that on said day said defendant appeared in person in defense of said action, at which time said cause, upon motion of said defendant, was continued until the 4th day of June, 1889; and on the 4th day of June, 1889, said cause was regularly called for trial by said court, and the defendant appeared in person and by attorneys, Messrs. Crow & White, and thereupon certain proceedings were had, and it appearing to the said justice that, under the laws of the state of Kansas, the action should be stayed, and should be certified to the district court of the thirteenth judicial district of the state of Kansas, in and for Cowley county, the said action was stayed, and was by said justice certified in due form to the said district court aforesaid. (3) That thereafter, to-wit, on the 25th day of January, 1890, said cause came on regularly to be heard in said district court, the said defendant appearing therein by his said attorneys, Messrs. Crow & White. A judgment was duly and regularly rendered by said court in said cause in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of $301.40, and also for costs therein, amounting to and taxed at $19.30; that said judgment bear interest from said date until paid at the rate of ten per cent. per annum,-a copy whereof is hereto attached as a part hereof, and marked 'Exhibit A;' and contained a prayer for judgment in the sum of $331.50, with interest thereon from the 27th day of May, 1890, at the rate of ten per cent. per annum, and for costs of suit." The defendant denied these matters generally, and for a further defense alleged as follows: "(1) He denies that the district court of the thirteenth judicial district of the state of Kansas, in and for the county of Cowley, ever obtained any jurisdiction over the subject-matter of any controversy between plaintiff and defendant, or ever had any such jurisdiction at any time over the subject-matter of any such action or proceeding as that described in plaintiff's amended complaint, or of any other description whatever. (2) He denies that any cause of action in favor of plaintiff and against defendant ever existed or was pending in said district court of Cowley county, Kansas, or that any agreement or stipulation was ever entered into by and between this defendant, or any one authorized to act for him, or claiming or pretending to act for him, whereby any subject-matter of controversy of the character mentioned in plaintiff's amended complaint, or of any character, was agreed to be submitted without the intervention of a complaint to said district court of Cowley county, Kansas, for determination. (3) He denies that any cause of action, or the subject-matter of any controversy between plaintiff and defendant, was ever submitted to said district court of Cowley county, Kansas, for judgment and determination, with the knowledge or agreement of said defendant, or any one acting for him, whereby the filing of any complaint or cause of action was in any manner waived or dispensed with."

The only proof offered in evidence was the judgment record, to the introduction of which the defendant objected on the following grounds: "That there is no showing that the district court of Cowley county, Kansas, had any jurisdiction of either the subject-matter of the action, or the parties in controversy; that no statute of the state of Kansas is either pleaded or offered to prove the authority of the justice of the peace to certify an action or proceeding to the district court of Cowley county or any other county in Kansas; that the justice of the peace did not in fact so certify such record; that the clerk of the district court aforesaid had no authority to certify to this court a copy of any such supposed transcript; that the said record had no seal of such district court attached to it, and that it was not sufficient to attach it to the certificate of the clerk; that the transcript showed that the judgment and record had not been signed by the judge of said court; that the judge did not certify that the attestation was in due form; that there was a variance between the record as pleaded, and the record offered in evidence." The court admitted the record, and it appears thereby that personal service was had on Willis A. Ritchie, in Kansas, when the action was commenced in justice court, and that said defendant appeared in person and by his attorneys, Crow & White. That, after answering, he moved the court as follows: "And now comes the defendant, and, representing to the court that upon the issues raised by the pleadings herein title to land is in dispute in this action, moves the court to certify this cause to the clerk of the district court of Cowley county, Kansas, in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the act of civil procedure, before a justice of the state of Kansas." Which motion the justice of the peace overruled at the time, but subsequently, after hearing evidence, granted. Then follows a transcript of the purported journal entry of the judgment rendered therein in said district court, which recites that: "Now, on this 25th day of January, A. D. 1890, this cause comes on in its regular order for trial. Plaintiff appears by Peckham & Henderson, his attorneys, and the defendant appears by Crow & White, his attorneys, and the plaintiff and the said defendant announce themselves ready for trial, and waive a jury, declaring that this cause shall be heard and tried by the court; and hereupon both parties offer their evidence, in consideration whereof the court finds for the plaintiff and against the said defendant upon the issues joined between them herein, and finds that the said Willis A. Ritchie is indebted to plaintiff upon the promissory note sued on in the sum of three hundred and one and 40-100 dollars, ($301.40;) and it is hereupon ordered and adjudged by the court that the said plaintiff do have and recover of and from the said defendant, Willis A. Ritchie, the said sum of three hundred and one and 40-100 dollars, and also his costs herein expended, amounting to $18.30, and that the said judgment bear interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum from the 25th day of January, 1890; and that said plaintiff have general execution against the said defendant therefor." And the following certificates are appended, attested by the seal of said district court:

"State of Kansas, Cowley county-ss.: I, Ed. Pate, clerk of the district court of the 13th judicial district in and for the county of Cowley and state of Kansas, do hereby certify that the foregoing are true copies of all the papers and pleadings and the final journal entry in case No. 4,077,-John Carpenter vs. Willis A. Ritchie,-which case was certified to this court by J. Van De Water, a duly elected and qualified justice of the peace for the city of Winfield, Cowley county, state of Kansas; and that said case was tried in this court, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff and against the defendant, Willis A. Ritchie, for the full sum as claimed in his bill of particulars, and for costs, as shown by the journal entry; and that the same is the only case between the same parties that has been in this court; and that no appeal was ever taken by the defendant, Willis A. Ritchie, to the judgment of this court, but that said judgment still remains in force and unsatisfied. Oct. 13th, 1890. [Signed] ED. PATE, Clk. of the Dist. Court of the 13th Judicial Dist. in and for Cowley County, State of Kansas."

"I, M. G. Troup, judge of the 13th judicial district in and for Cowley county, state of Kansas, do hereby certify that the above certificate is signed by Ed. Pate, who is clerk of the district court of Cowley county, state of Kansas, and in the 13th judicial district. [Signed] M. G. TROUP, Judge of the 13th Judicial District of Kansas."

"I, Ed. Pate, clerk of the district court of Cowley county, state of Kansas, do hereby certify that the last certificate is signed by M. G. Troup, who is judge of the 13th judicial district of the state of Kansas, Oct. 15th, 1890. [Signed] ED. PATE, Clerk of the District Court, Cowley County, Kansas."

Section 1, art. 4, of the constitution of the...