Colfax Nat. Bank v. Davis Implement Co.
Decision Date | 16 July 1908 |
Citation | 50 Wash. 92,96 P. 823 |
Parties | COLFAX NAT. BANK v. DAVIS IMPLEMENT CO. et al. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Whitman County; S. J. Chadwick, Judge.
Action by the Colfax National Bank against the Davis Implement Company, A. J. Davis, and another. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants Davis and another appeal. Affirmed.
John Pattison, for appellants.
U. L Ettinger and McCroskey & Canfield, for respondent.
This action was instituted by the Colfax National Bank against the Davis Implement Company and A. J. Davis and I. J. Davis to recover a balance due for services performed and moneys paid out and expended in experting and checking up the books of account of the Davis Implement Company at the special instance and request of the defendants. The defendant the Davis Implement Company and the defendants A. J. Davis and I J. Davis severed in their defenses, and the case came on for trial. During the impaneling of the jury the defendants A. J Davis and I. J. Davis interposed a peremptory challenge to one of the jurors; but the court refused to entertain or allow the challenge unless joined in by all the defendants. The defendant the Davis Implement Company refused to join in the challenge and the challenge was disallowed. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants A. J. Davis and I. J. Davis have appealed.
The only error assigned is the ruling of the court in disallowing the peremptory challenge. A decision of this question turns entirely upon the construction to be given section 4979, Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. (Pierce's Code, § 593), as there was no right of peremptory challenge in civil actions at common law. Section 4979 provides as follows: This statute expressly provides that, if there are several parties on either side of a controversy, they must all join in the challenge, and the language is so plain and free from ambiguity that little room is left for construction. The appellants rely largely on the decisions in Stroh v. Hinchman, 37 Mich. 490, and Hundhausen v. Atkins, 36 Wis. 518. The Michigan case holds that the right of separate challenge exists in favor of each defendant who pleads separately by different counsel. The Wisconsin case holds that, 'when their defenses are essentially different, especially when these are hostile, defendants must necessarily sever in their answers; and, as each has a distinct issue to maintain, we think that each is to be considered a party, within the meaning of section 37, c. 118, Rev. St. 1858.' But even the decision in the Wisconsin case would not entitle the appellants to separate challenges under the issues here presented, for there the court said: But the Michigan and Wisconsin statutes differ widely from our own. The former provides...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sutton v. Otis Elevator Co.
... ... D. & R. G ... R. Co., (Utah) 178 P. 68; Davis v. Mellen ... (Utah) 182 P. 920; Edgar v. R. G. W. R. Co ... North Texas ... Traction Co., 118 S.W. 807; First Nat'l Bank v ... San Antonio R. Co., et al., 77 S.W. 410; ... transcript or case-made. Lane Implement Co. v. Lowder & ... Manning , 11 Okla. 61, 65 P. 926. The ... There is also an illuminating note to Colfax National ... Bank v. Davis et al. in 16 Ann. Cas. 265, ... ...
-
Lebak v. Nelson
... ... Mitchell, 36 Idaho 724, 727, 214 P. 217; Colfax Nat ... Bank v. Davis Implement Co., 50 Wash. 92, 96 P ... ...
-
Carr v. Davis
...allow any. The word "side," in the ordinary case, means a plaintiff side or a defendant side. The statute means what it says. Colfax Nat. Bank v. Davis, 50 Wash. 92, N.W. 823, and note thereto in 16 Ann. Cas. 264; Crandall v. Puget Sound Traction L. & P. Co. 77 Wash. 37, 137 P. 319; Downey ......
-
Carr v. Davis
...The word ‘side,’ in the ordinary case, means a plaintiff side or a defendant side. The statute means what it says. Colfax National Bank v. Davis, 50 Wash. 92, 96 Pac. 823, and note thereto in 16 Ann. Cas. 264;Crandall v. Puget Sound, etc., 77 Wash. 37, 137 Pac. 319;Downey v. Finucane, 205 N......