Gray's Harbor Commercial Co. v. Wotton

• Decision Date: 24 February 1896
• Citation: 14 Wash. 87,43 P. 1095
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: GRAY'S HARBOR COMMERCIAL CO. v. WOTTON ET AL.

43 P. 1095

14 Wash. 87

GRAY'S HARBOR COMMERCIAL CO. v. WOTTON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 24, 1896

Appeal from superior court, Chehalis county; Mason Irwin, Judge.

Action by the Gray's Harbor Commercial Company, a corporation, against M. B. Wotton and others, to foreclose a mechanic's lien. From the judgment rendered, certain of defendants appeal. Dismissed.

H. W. Lueders and J. B. Bridges, for appellants.

Austin E. Griffiths, for respondent.

SCOTT, J.

This action was brought to foreclose a mechanic's lien, and, judgment being rendered for the plaintiff, certain of the defendants appealed. Respondent moves to dismiss on the ground that the notice of appeal was not served upon one Carlson, who had intervened in the action. It is conceded by appellants that Carlson was not served, but it is claimed that his attempted intervention was without leave of court, and was disallowed, and that he never became a party; but the record fails to substantiate this claim. While no formal order allowing Carlson to intervene appears, his complaint in intervention was filed, alleging that leave of court had been obtained; and no motion was made to strike the same, by appellants or any one. The record shows that several demurrers were filed to this complaint on the ground that it did not state a cause of action, and there is nothing to show that these demurrers have ever been disposed of, nor does it appear that the court has taken any action upon said complaint in intervention in any way. The only reference thereto which we have found in any order of the court-and none has been called to our attention by the parties-is in an order made by the superior court of King county allowing an assignee of certain of the defendants, who had instituted proceedings in insolvency, to appear in the superior court of Chehalis county, and defend said action, and in giving the title of the cause in said order the original plaintiffs and defendants are mentioned, and also C. F. Carlson as intervening defendant. Here was a direct recognition by the court, if any further was needed, that Carlson was a party to the case, and as such his claim should have been disposed of before an appeal was prosecuted, and notice of appeal should have been served upon him. Dismissed.

HOYT, C.J., and DUNBAR, J., concur. GORDON, J., took no part.