Cunningham v. Spokane Hydraulic Co.

• Decision Date: 10 February 1898
• Citation: 52 P. 235,18 Wash. 524
• Parties: CUNNINGHAM v. SPOKANE HYDRAULIC CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

52 P. 235

18 Wash. 524

CUNNINGHAM v. SPOKANE HYDRAULIC CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 10, 1898

Appeal from superior court, Spokane county; William E. Richardson Judge.

Action by Clarence Cunningham against the Spokane Hydraulic Company on a foreign judgment. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Reversed.

H. M. Stephens, for appellant.

W. B Heyburn and T. H. Bartlett, for respondent.

REAVIS J.

The question for consideration in this case is the validity of a judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant (appellant here), entered in the district court of the state of Idaho. This action was commenced by plaintiff (respondent here) in the superior court of Spokane county upon a judgment from the state of Idaho. The certified record of the proceedings and the judgment roll from the district court of Idaho were tendered in evidence by plaintiff in support of the action founded thereon, and its reception objected to by defendant upon the ground that the purported record showed upon its face that defendant was a nonresident of Idaho at the date of the service of summons and the record did not affirmatively show that the court had jurisdiction of the defendant; that the facts disclosed by the record tendered were not enough to confer jurisdiction on the court. An inspection of the record tendered discloses that the defendant was a foreign corporation; that is, organized under the laws of this state, and doing business in Idaho. The complaint in this action alleges that the district court of the First judicial district of Idaho for Shoshone county is a court of general jurisdiction, duly created and organized under the laws of Idaho, but the complaint does not set out the laws of Idaho relating to service upon foreign corporations. It is true, as maintained by respondent, that judgments of a court of general jurisdiction presume jurisdiction, but this presumption of jurisdiction extends only to persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. "Whenever it appears from the inspection of the record of a court of general jurisdiction that the defendant, against whom a personal judgment or decree was rendered, was, at the time of the alleged service, without the territorial limits of the court, and thus beyond the reach of its process, and that he never appeared in the action, the presumption of jurisdiction over his person ceases, and the burden of establishing the jurisdiction is cast upon the party who invokes the benefit or protection of the judgment or decree." 2 Black, Judgm. §§ 895, 896, 910. This rule applies to foreign corporations as well as to natural persons. Id. § 910; 6 Thomp. Corp. § 7506. The return of service of summons made by the sheriff of Shoshone county, Idaho, in the record, recites that he personally served the same on Jesse Coulter, as agent of the defendant corporation, being the defendant named in the summons. The defendant, in its answer, has set out certain portions of the laws of Idaho, relating to the service of summons on foreign corporations (Rev. St. Idaho, § 4144, subd. 2) as follows: "If the suit is against a foreign corporation, or a nonresident joint stock company or association, doing business and having a managing or business agent, cashier or secretary within this territory to such agent, cashier, or secretary, or to any station, ticket or other agent of such corporation transacting business thereof in the county where the action is commenced, and if there is no such agent in said county, then service may be had upon any such agent in any other county." And also section 2653 of the same statute, as follows: "Every corporation not created under the laws of this territory, doing business...