Hays v. Dennis

• Decision Date: 07 March 1895
• Citation: 39 P. 658,11 Wash. 360
• Parties: HAYS ET AL. v. DENNIS ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

39 P. 658

11 Wash. 360

HAYS ET AL. v. DENNIS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 7, 1895

Appeal from superior court, King county; J. W. Langley, Judge.

Action by W. F. Hays and another against J. H. Dennis and others to foreclose a chattel mortgage. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

William E. Humphrey, for appellants.

Steele & Gephart, for respondent Wales. Frank P Lewis, for respondent Peterson.

HOYT C.J.

Respondents move to dismiss this appeal, for the reason that it was taken before the judgment had been made, signed, and entered. That it was taken after the announcement by the court of the terms of the judgment is conceded, and, such being the fact, we think the motion must be denied. The statutes governing appeals should be liberally construed, to the end that parties may have a review by this court of the rulings of the superior courts when they so desire. The appeal statute thus construed will require us to give force to a notice of appeal given after the court had announced its decision, although it was before the signing and entering of the formal judgment. For some purposes the judgment may not be complete until thus signed and entered, but, after such announcement, it was so far complete as to sustain a notice of appeal.

The only question presented upon the merits is as to the sufficiency of the complaint of appellants. We have been able to gather from the brief of respondents but two grounds upon which they found their contention that such complaint did not state a cause of action. One is that the interest of the mortgagor in the property to foreclose a mortgage upon which the suit was brought was not such that he could make a valid mortgage thereon. The other is that the mortgage and another paper upon which plaintiffs founded rights were not set out either at length or in substance, in the complaint; that they were only referred to therein, and annexed thereto as exhibits. That there is a line of cases which hold that a complaint cannot be aided by an exhibit referred to therein and attached thereto is beyond question. But, under the liberal rule as to the construction of pleadings under our statute, the doctrine therein announced is of doubtful authority in any case; and, when there is such a statement of the nature of the paper attached as an exhibit as to put an interested party upon inquiry as to its contents, can be given no force. The reference in the complaint under consideration to the attached exhibits was sufficient to thus put the defendants upon inquiry, and, in our opinion, made them a substantial part of the complaint. Information as to their general nature was given in the body of the complaint, and the means given to obtain the fullest knowledge...