Essency v. Essency
| Citation | 10 Wash. 375,38 P. 1130 |
| Parties | ESSENCY v. ESSENCY ET AL. |
| Decision Date | 26 December 1894 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Appeal from superior court, King county; J. W. Langley, Judge.
Action by Joseph Essency against James Essency and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants Jerome Catlin and Russell Catlin appeal. Reversed.
Allen & Powell, for appellants.
Ronald & Piles, for respondent.
This action was brought to secure the foreclosure of a lien upon certain farm products, the ownership of which was alleged to have been in the defendant James Essency, for whom it was alleged the work for which the lien was claimed had been done. The other defendants were alleged to have some interest in the property, the extent of which was unknown to the plaintiff.
The defendant James Essency never appeared in the action and judgment was taken against him by default. The defendants Catlin filed an answer putting in issue most of the allegations of the complaint, and setting out certain affirmative defenses. The trial resulted in a finding for plaintiff, and a decree for the foreclosure of his lien upon the property for the amount found due. From this decree the defendants Catlin have prosecuted this appeal. They served notice of appeal upon the plaintiff, but made no service upon the defendant James Essency, and because of the failure to serve him, respondent moves a dismissal of the appeal. In our opinion, it was not necessary to serve him, he not having appeared in the action, and the motion to dismiss must be denied.
Many reasons are set out in the brief of the appellants why the decree should be reversed. The one most relied upon is the action of the court in sustaining the objection of the plaintiff to certain evidence offered by the appellants. It was claimed by the appellants that the plaintiff and the defendant James Essency were mutually interested in the contract for the raising of the crops upon which the lien was sought to be enforced, which had been entered into by James Essency on the one part and the defendants Catlin on the other. And, to establish this claim, they sought to prove certain admissions of the plaintiff, for the purpose of showing that he was a partner with his brother in the conduct of the farm at the time the crops in question were raised. The court, upon the objection of respondent, refused to allow these admissions to be shown. This was error. The respondent in his brief does not contend that these admissions were incompetent if they tended to establish the fact for which they were sought to be introduced, but he claims that they did not. He further claims that, since such testimony was sought to be elicited on the re-examination of a witness, its admission was within the discretion of the court, and that the form of the question was objectionable. The exclusion of the testimony might be sustained upon these grounds, did it not appear from the record that the ruling of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shuptrine v. Jackson Equipment & Service Co
...G. Company, 146 Miss. 414; French v. Powell, 135 Cal. 636, 68 P. 92; Sampson v. Commonwealth, 202 Mass. 326, 88 N.E. 911; Essency v. Essency, 10 Wash. 375, 38 P. 1130; Natl. Surety Co. v. Bratnobor Lbr. Co., 67 601, 122 P. 337; Mylroie Lbr. Co. Case, 119 Wash. 142, 205 P. 398; London, etc.,......
-
National Sur. Co. v. Bratnober Lumber Co.
...is not such a service or supply as comes within the protection of the bond, and that therefore appellant is not liable. In Essency v. Essency, 10 Wash. 375, 38 P. 1130, court, considering a right of lien under a statute relating to farm laborers, said: 'One other question which will be mate......
-
Allen v. Garner
...or could have been entered, and therefore it was held they were not necessary parties to the appeals in those cases. The case of Essency v. Essency, supra, our judgment goes to the extent of holding that although a party may be interested in having the judgment appealed from maintained, yet......
-
Mitchell v. Banking Corp.
...were not in jeopardy. The failure to serve notice of appeal upon them does not affect the jurisdiction of this court. Essency v. Essency, 10 Wash. 375, 38 P. 1130;Keller v. Boatman, 49 Ind. 101;Riley v. Blacker, 51 Mont. 364, 152 P. 758;Anderson v. Red Metal Min. Co., 36 Mont. 312, 93 P. 44......