Chezum v. Claypool

• Decision Date: 21 May 1900
• Citation: 61 P. 157,22 Wash. 498
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: CHEZUM et al. v. CLAYPOOL et al.

61 P. 157

22 Wash. 498

CHEZUM et al. v. CLAYPOOL et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 21, 1900

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; Thomas Carroll, Judge.

Action by F. O. Chezum and another against C. E. Claypool and others to cancel a judgment. From a judgment for complainants defendants appeal. Reversed.

E. E Cushman, for appellants.

G. L McKay and Ira A. Town, for respondents.

GORDON C.J.

In December, 1894, the superior court of Pierce county rendered judgment in favor of Caroline Bokien and against the State Insurance Company for the sum of $600 and costs. An appeal was taken to this court, and the judgment affirmed. 14 Wash 39, 44 P. 110. In the order of remittitur to the lower court, the costs of the trial court were, by inadvertence, omitted. On March 31, 1896, the superior court, upon motion of counsel for Bokien, proceeded to enter judgment in conformity with the remittitur of this court, and included therein the costs arising in the trial of the action. Subsequently, and during the years 1896, 1897, and 1898, various writs of garnishment and execution were issued, based upon that judgment, and certain proceedings supplemental to execution were had and taken; and in October, 1898, the respondents in this case, who were sureties upon the appeal bond, and against whom judgment went, moved to vacate and set aside the judgment of March 31, 1896, upon various grounds. This motion was supported by affidavit, and, after hearing, was denied by the court. No appeal was taken therefrom. Subsequently this action was brought to cancel the judgment. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and the appeal in the present instance is from a judgment in plaintiffs' favor, directing the cancellation of the judgment.

We think that plaintiffs have mistaken their remedy, and that the decision upon the application to vacate the judgment was a bar to any subsequent proceeding. It is fundamental that equity will not interfere where there is a full and adequate remedy at law, and our statute (Ballinger's Ann. Codes &amp St.§§ 5153-5162, inclusive) provides such a remedy. It is not pretended that the plaintiffs in the present action were not aware of the existence of the judgment. On the contrary, although knowing its terms and provisions, and the repeated efforts to enforce it, they took no steps to have it modified or vacated for upwards of two years, when they proceeded to move against it. The...