Gerson v. Sussman

• Decision Date: 08 March 1934
• Docket Number: 24807.
• Citation: 176 Wash. 564,30 P.2d 379
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: GERSON v. SUSSMAN et al.

30 P.2d 379

176 Wash. 564

GERSON v. SUSSMAN et al.

No. 24807.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 8, 1934

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; E. D. Hodge, Judge.

Action by G. Lee Gerson against Frank Sussman and others, in which Gustave Weissbaum and another were made parties defendant on original defendants' request. From a judgment against defendant Gustave Weissbaum, he appeals.

Affirmed.

Judson Benton, of Tacoma, for appellant.

Eggerman & Rosling, of Seattle, for respondent.

MAIN Justice.

In the complaint in this case, there are two causes of action separately stated, each of which is based upon a promissory note. The maker of the notes admitted liability, paid the amount thereof into the registry of the court, and asked that other parties who were rival claimants to the proceeds be made parties to the action. An order was entered adding as additional defendants Gustave Weissbaum, George I. Weissbaum and a bank which disclaimed any interest and was dismissed out of the action. Each of the other additional defendants voluntarily appeared and asked affirmative relief.

Before the question as to whether Gustave Weissbaum or George I Weissbaum were entitled to the proceeds of the notes could be determined, it was necessary to take an accounting of the partnership which had theretofore existed between them. An issue was made by their pleadings as to whether or not, in fact, a partnership had existed, and a trial was had on this question which resulted in a judgment finding a partnership relation. To make the accounting, a referee was appointed in pursuance of the stipulation of the parties. Subsequently, the referee filed a report in which it was found that Gustave Weissbaum was indebted to George I. Weissbaum in the sum of $23,857.90. Gustave Weissbaum filed exceptions to the report, and the matter came on for hearing upon the exceptions, at which hearing, the referee, as the judgment recites, testified, in support of, and supplemental to, his written original report, and there were introduced at this hearing documents and evidence supplemental to the report. As a result of the hearing, judgment was entered against Gustave Weissbaum in the sum of $23,857.90, reciting that the court adopted the findings of the referee, from which he appeals.

The only parties to the appeal are Gustave Weissbaum, the appellant, and George I. Weissbaum, the respondent. No statement of facts or bill of exceptions has been brought to this court, and consequently we know nothing of the evidence which was taken upon either of the hearings.

It is first said that the court erred in assuming jurisdiction of the partnership relations between nonresidents of this state and affecting property and evidence located wholly within the state of California. It will be admitted that it is sufficiently disclosed by the record Before us that the appellant and the respondent were residents of the state of California; that the partnership transactions occurred there; and that the documentary evidence contained in books and papers was in that state. The parties, even though residents of the state of California, having voluntarily appeared, subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the court. There is nothing in the record, properly Before us, from which it can be found or inferred that, in adjusting the partnership relation, it was necessary to pass judgment on the title to land in the state of California. The action involved the personal relations of the parties, and the superior courts of this state had jurisdiction to afford relief.

In Smith v. Fletcher, 102 Wash. 218, 173 P. 19, 20, 636, it was said:

'It is a universal rule that the courts of one state cannot pass judgment on the title to land in another state. But, where the action is aimed at the personal relations of parties in connection with property beyond the

...