Hurley v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 09 May 1924 |
| Docket Number | 18322. |
| Citation | 225 P. 441,129 Wash. 567 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | HURLEY v. WILSON et ux. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Lincoln County; Huneke, Judge.
Action by J. A. Hurley against W. A. Wilson and Alice Wilson. On petition of the latter to vacate default judgment. From order denying petition, she appeals. Order affirmed.
Merritt Lantry & Baske and Merritt & Curtis, all of Spokane, for appellant.
Freece & Pettijohn, of Davenport, for respondent.
This action was originally brought by respondent as plaintiff to foreclose a deed, absolute in form, as a mortgage. Personal service was had upon each of the defendants. No appearance was made by either of them, and in due course they were adjudged in default. Evidence was heard on behalf of plaintiff, findings of fact and conclusions of law were made, and on January 23, 1922, a decree was entered granting the relief prayed for. After notice duly given, the mortgaged property was sold by the sheriff as ordered by the decree, on February 25, 1922; the plaintiff becoming the purchaser for the full amount of the judgment, interest, and costs. On May 24, 1922, practically three months after the sale, and more than four months after the entry of the decree, appellant interposed her petition for the vacation of the decree. A hearing on the petition was had, resulting in an order denying the relief sought, from which order this appeal is prosecuted.
Appellant presents and argues at length many points. Her brief is a monument to the resourcefulness and industry of her counsel yet, while we have carefully examined into, weighed, and considered each of her contentions, and find them not well taken, to set them out and discuss them intelligently would take much space, and serve no good purpose, since anything so said would not be necessary to a decision of this case.
Appellant's arguments are directed chiefly to errors of law which are thought to have been committed in entering the original judgment now sought to be vacated. We have too often held that such a proceeding as this cannot be used as a means for the court to review and revise its own final judgment to again enter upon a discussion of the subject. See In re Jones' Estate, 116 Wash. 424, 199 P. 734, and the authorities there collated and commented upon. We therefore confine ourselves to what we consider the only real question involved.
In her petition appellant alleged facts which she claims misled her, and caused her to believe that, pending certain negotiations then under way, no default would be taken against her, and s...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beckett v. Cosby, 39183
...as to whether this constitutes excusable neglect arises. We find it unnecessary to reach the latter question. In Hurley v. Wilson, 129 Wash. 567, 225 P. 441 (1924), appellant, who had suffered a default judgment because of her failure to appear, contended that she was misled by certain nego......
-
In re Madeline M. Thiede Trust
... ... judgment sought to be vacated. State v. Keller, 32 ... Wn.App. 135, 140, 647 P.2d 35 (1982) (citing Hurley v ... Wilson, 129 Wash. 567, 568, 225 P. 441 (1924)). CR 60(b) ... does not authorize vacation of judgments except for reasons ... ...
-
Verhaag v. Finch (In re Madeline M. Thiede Tr.)
...entering the order or judgment sought to be vacated. State v. Keller, 32 Wn. App. 135, 140, 647 P.2d 35 (1982) (citing Hurley v. Wilson, 129 Wash. 567, 568, 225 P. 441 (1924)). CR 60(b) does not authorize vacation of judgments except for reasons extraneous to the action of the court or for ......
-
Leavitt v. De Young
...court, and substantial grounds therefor, including the showing of a meritorious defense, must be made to clearly appear. Hurley v. Wilson, 129 Wash. 567, 225 P. 441; Robertson v. Wise, 152 Wash. 624, 279 P. 106. An order granting a motion to vacate such judgment will not be disturbed by thi......