Coleman v. Security Sav. Soc.

• Decision Date: 25 March 1910
• Citation: 57 Wash. 675,107 P. 842
• Parties: COLEMAN et al. v. SECURITY SAVINGS SOCIETY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

107 P. 842

57 Wash. 675

COLEMAN et al. v. SECURITY SAVINGS SOCIETY.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 25, 1910

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; E. H Sullivan, Judge.

Action by H. Coleman and others against the Security Savings Society. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

P. C Shine, for appellant.

Cohn &amp Blake, for respondents.

FULLERTON J.

This is a proceeding by petition under the Code to yacate a judgment in a tax foreclosure proceeding. From the record it appears that in December, 1903, the treasurer of Spokane county issued a certificate of delinquency for unpaid taxes levied upon land, described as a single tract situated in that county. In September, 1904, J. F. Congleton, one of the plaintiffs, being then the owner of a part of the property covered by the certificate of delinquency, applied to the treasurer of Spokane county, asking to have the taxes apportioned, so that he might pay such part of the tax as was justly chargeable against his part of the property. The county treasurer made the apportionment as requested, whereupon Congleton paid the tax chargeable against his property into the county treasury, and took out a certificate showing its redemption from the certificate of delinquency. Thereafter, and on October 10, 1904, the appellant, then holding the delinquency certificate, received from the treasurer the money so paid. For the year 1904 and for each of the subsequent years the parties owning the two tracts paid taxes upon the separate portions. In 1907 the appellant began proceedings to foreclose his delinquency certificate against the entire tract, alleging in his application therefor that the apportionment made by the treasurer was illegal and void. He made defendants all of the parties named as respondents in this action, causing them to be served with process, and, after time for answer had expired, took a judgment by default foreclosing its certificate. This application to vacate the judgment was thereupon filed, and a hearing had, at the conclusion of which the court vacated the judgment in so far as its affected the property on which the taxes were paid by Congleton after the apportionment made by the county treasurer. This appeal was taken therefrom.

The appellant first questions the sufficiency of the showing offered by the respondents to excuse their default in the foreclosure proceedings; but, without reviewing the evidence on the point, we think the respondents made out a case of mistake and inadvertence on their part sufficient to excuse their action in that behalf. The failure to appear and defend was due to a misunderstanding between counsel, in which doubtless each was acting...