Crowley v. Baumgartner
| Decision Date | 19 January 1921 |
| Docket Number | 15970. |
| Citation | 194 P. 970,114 Wash. 193 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | CROWLEY v. BAUMGARTNER et al. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Bruce Blake, Judge.
Suit by Mary Crowley against Matt Baumgartner, wherein Mamie Baumgartner intervened. From judgment dismissing the complaint in intervention, and awarding recovery against defendant, the intervener appeals. Judgment affirmed.
John M. Gleeson, of Spokane, for appellant.
Horning & McEvers, of Wallace, Idaho, and J. Webster Hancox, of Spokane, for respondent.
Mary Crowley, respondent here, on April 18, 1919, obtained a judgment in the district court of the state of Idaho, based on personal service against the defendant, Matt Baumgartner. Thereafter respondent brought suit on such judgment in this state against the same defendant. Appellant Mamie Baumgartner intervened in the cause, and by her amended complaint in intervention alleged that she and the defendant had been wife and husband since January 5, 1898, and that they had resided continuously in the state of Washington for 14 years last past, and had never resided in the state of Idaho, and then proceeded to set up defenses on the merits, the same, in effect, as were pleaded by the defendant in the Idaho court.
On motion appellant's amended complaint in intervention was stricken except as to the allegations of marriage and residence in Washington, and she declined to plead further. The cause coming on for trial before the court sitting without a jury, the judgment of the Idaho court was offered in evidence, no evidence being offered on behalf of the defendant or the intervener, and thereafter findings were made and a judgment entered dismissing the complaint in intervention, and awarding recovery against the defendant for the amount of the Idaho judgment plus interest and costs. The intervener alone appeals.
Appellant seems to contend that, the civil disabilities of married women having been abolished in this state, the wife should have been permitted to defend this action under Rem. Code, § 182. Whatever may have been her rights in the courts of Idaho prior to the determination of the issues there, the argument advanced is now no longer pertinent. The Idaho court was one of general jurisdiction. It had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter, and after it had found against the defendant and entered its solemn judgment to that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Steamship Mut. Underwriting Ass'n, 32715
...i. e., a judgment valid where rendered is conclusive as to the merits of the cause of action merged therein. Crowley v. Baumgartner, 1921, 114 Wash. 193, 194 P. 970; Deposit Bank of Frankfort v. City of Frankfort, 1903, 191 U.S. 499, 24 S.Ct. 154, 48 L.Ed. 276; Milliken v. Meyer, 1940, 311 ......
- State v. Ely