Cline v. Harmon

• Citation: 26 P. 191,2 Wash. 155
• Parties: CLINE v. HARMON ET AL. [1]
• Decision Date: 24 February 1891
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

26 P. 191

2 Wash. 155

CLINE v. HARMON ET AL. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Washington

February 24, 1891

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county.

John C. Stallcup, for appellant.

Marshall K. Snell, for appellees.

ANDERS, C.J.

This was an action by appellees against appellant in the court below for the recovery of $168, upon an account for goods sold and delivered. The defendant in his answer denied owing the plaintiffs the amount claimed, but admitted an indebtedness of $115. At about the time the defendant's answer was filed the plaintiffs filed a bond and affidavits and caused an order and warrant of arrest to issue, upon which the defendant was arrested, and held to bail in the sum of $300. The defendant moved the court to vacate the order of arrest, for the reasons, as alleged, that there was no law authorizing arrest and imprisonment in civil actions before judgment; that the proof upon which the order was issued was insufficient, and showed no pertinent facts; that the bond for arrest was defective; and that the allegations upon which the order was issued were untrue. The motion was denied by the court, and the defendant, before final judgment in the action, appealed to this court, and assigns the ruling of the court in granting the order of arrest, and in refusing to vacate the same, as error. Counsel for appellees move to dismiss the appeal upon two grounds First, that the order from which the appeal is sought to be taken is not appealable, and the court is without jurisdiction; and, second, that the action in which said order was made is a civil action at law for the recovery of money, where the original amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of $200, and the action does not involve the legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll municipal fine, or the validity of a statute. Whether this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the question now before it must depend upon the construction to be given to the statute in reference to appeals. The act of the legislature concerning the removal of causes from the superior courts to the supreme court, (as amended March 27 1890,) ^[1] following substantially the language of the state constitution, provides that "an appeal may be taken to the supreme court from the superior courts in all actions and proceedings, excepting that its appellate jurisdiction shall not extend to civil actions at law for the recovery of money or property, when the original amount in controversy or the value of the property does not exceed the sum of two hundred (200) dollars, unless the action involves the legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, municipal fine, or the validity of a statute." In the case of Windt v. Banniza, ante, 189, but recently decided by this court, and which...