Hansen v. Bank of California, Nat. Ass'n

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: TOLMAN, Justice.
• Citation: Hansen v. Bank of California, Nat. Ass'n, 66 P.2d 303, 189 Wash. 454 (Wash. 1937)
• Decision Date: 17 March 1937
• Docket Number: 26375.
• Parties: HANSEN et al. v. BANK OF CALIFORNIA, NAT. ASS'N.

66 P.2d 303

189 Wash. 454

HANSEN et al. v. BANK OF CALIFORNIA, NAT. ASS'N.

No. 26375.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 17, 1937

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Malcolm Douglas, Judge.

Action by Niels A. Hansen and another against the Bank of California, National Association. From an order striking their third amended complaint and dismissing the action on demurrer, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Niels A. Hansen, pro se.

Kerr McCord & Carey, of Seattle, for respondent.

TOLMAN Justice.

This appeal is prosecuted by the plaintiffs from an order striking their third amended complaint and dismissing the action after demurrers had been sustained, in due course, to the original complaint, to an amended complaint, and to a second amended complaint.

The order appealed from contains the following recitations as the basis for a judgment of dismissal: 'It appearing to the court that the previous complaints filed herein contain references to other causes which demonstrate that the subject matter of the present action is res judicata, and that it is sham and frivolous to file a third amended complaint without reference to those previous actions, since it appears that such omission was made for the purpose of avoiding the question of res judicata on demurrer, and that therefore the present third amended complaint should be stricken and the action be dismissed. * * *'

A careful consideration of the transcript filed by the appellants and of the supplemental transcript filed by the respondent which together, apparently, bring to us everything which was Before the trial court, establish beyond question that the recitations above quoted, correctly and sufficiently for present purposes, reflect the nature and conditions of the record.

Three complaints were successively filed, each of which attempted to plead a cause of action which, as appeared from the complaint, had been previously adjudicated. To each of these complaints, in turn, a demurrer had been sustained. Then, in their third amended complaint the plaintiffs ignored all of their previous allegations which identified the cause of action pleaded with the cause of action which had been adjudicated and seemingly they now contend that as they have ignored the previously pleaded facts the court is bound to close its eyes to the record which clearly reveals those facts.

The case of German Mexican Co. v. Mexican Pacific Co., 163...