Idaho Trust & Savings Bank, Ltd. v. Ridenbaugh
| Decision Date | 09 December 1916 |
| Citation | 29 Idaho 647,161 P. 868 |
| Parties | IDAHO TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, LIMITED, et al., Respondents, v. W. H. RIDENBAUGH et al., Appellants |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
JUDGMENTS ACTIONS UPON - COSTS, VESTED RIGHT TO - EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT-PARTIES BENEFICIALLY INTERESTED-NECESSARY AND PROPER PARTIES-NEW TRIAL-RES ADJUDICATA.
1. Where the right to costs has become vested in the parties entitled thereto by reason of the performance and completion of services rendered under a valid order of the trial court pursuant to the provisions of sec. 37, Sess. Laws 1903, and such right had accrued prior to the enactment by the legislature of the act of March 9, 1905, amendatory of the act of 1903, and where it further appears that the trial court prorated said costs under the provisions of sec. 37, Sess. Laws 1903, and judgment for costs was thereupon entered and upon appeal to this court from such judgment the same was affirmed, the judgment will not be disturbed by this court upon an action subsequently brought because of the amendment of the law.
2. It being conclusively established upon the trial that the plaintiffs below (respondents here) were the sole owners of all the outstanding unpaid certificates of indebtedness issued by the state engineer in pursuance of a valid order of the trial court, made under the provisions of sec. 37, Sess Laws 1903, said certificates of indebtedness so issued representing the judgment entered for costs, the holders of such certificates are the legal owners of said judgment and are entitled to sue thereon in their own name.
3. Held, where parties who are beneficially interested in a judgment for costs are paid in full during the pendency of an action, upon a judgment they are no longer proper or necessary parties to such action, and the right to maintain said action would be limited to such parties as were the beneficial owners of said judgment.
4. Where the priorities of the several litigants to the right to the use of the waters of a stream, and the costs apportioned to such litigants, were definitely determined by the trial court, and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed by this court upon appeal, the issues thus determined are final and binding upon this court, and the judgment of the trial court will not thereafter be disturbed.
[As to proof that matter is res judicata, see note in 44 Am.St. 562]
APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Charles P. McCarthy, Judge.
Action upon a judgment for costs. Judgment for plaintiffs. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded in favor of respondents.
Wood Driscoll & Wood, for Appellant.
The so-called judgment upon which this action is based is void, and as such may be collaterally attacked. (Freeman on Judgments, 3d ed., sec. 117; Leland v. Isenbeck, 1 Idaho 469; Ray v. Ray, 1 Idaho 566, 581.)
"If a person is not made a party to an action, his rights cannot be determined or affected by a judgment or decree entered in such case." (Idaho Irr. Co. v. Dill, 25 Idaho 711, 720, 139 P. 714; 23 Cyc. 412; Bachman v. Sepulveda, 39 Cal. 688; Sisk v. Almon, 34 Ark. 391; Rice v. Goldberg, 26 Ill.App. 603; Johnson v. Block (Tex. Civ.), 46 S.W. 85; Dunlap v. Southerlin, 63 Tex. 38.)
Prior to the time when this so-called judgment was rendered, sec. 37 of the 1903 act, which was the court's sole authority for taxing these costs, had been superseded by the 1905 amendment to sec. 37, which became effective May 3, 1905 (1905 Sess. Laws, p. 362, sec. 4), and the amendment authorizes no judgment whatever against parties to the action.
The court would be absolutely bound by the new amendment at the time this judgment was made, as is shown in Boise Irr. & Land Co. v. Stewart, 10 Idaho 38, 58, 77 P. 25, 321.
Assuming that the judgment was a valid judgment, this plaintiff can maintain no action thereon, for no valid assignment of the judgment is pleaded or proven. (Freeman on Judgments, 3d ed., sec. 424; McMurray v. Marsh, 12 Colo. App. 95, 54 P. 852.)
"It seems to be the uniformly received doctrine that partial assignments of judgments cannot be made without the consent of the judgment debtor." (Lewis v. Third St. etc. R. R. Co., 26 Wash. 28, 66 P. 150; Snedden v. Harmes, 5 Colo. App. 477, 39 P. 68; Burnett v. Crandall, 63 Mo. 410.)
There is a defect of parties, in that all persons holding certificates or otherwise having a joint interest in the so-called judgment are not joined, or, if joined, were not served with process. (Kissler v. Moss, 26 Idaho 516, 144 P. 647; Burkett v. Lehmen-Higginson Grocery Co., 8 Okla. 84, 56 P. 856; Jansen v. Hyde, 8 Colo. App. 38, 44 P. 760; 23 Cyc. 1507; Gilbert v. Allen, 57 Ind. 524; Culver v. Smith, 82 Mo.App. 390.)
It is held that in an action by an equitable assignee of a judgment, an assignor must be made a party defendant. (Chicago & S.E. Ry. Co. v. Higgins, 150 Ind. 329, 50 N.E. 32; McCardle v. Aultman Co. (Ind. App.), 66 N.E. 507; affirmed, 31 Ind.App. 63, 67 N.E. 236.)
The so-called judgment was set aside by the order of this court sustaining the motion for a new trial, and until new trial is had no judgment exists upon which to base a suit. (1 Hayne, New Trial & Appeal, sec. 167, p. 871; Kent v. Williams, 146 Cal. 3, 79 P. 527.)
Cavanah & Blake and N. Eugene Braise, for Respondents.
It is within the power of this court to affirm a judgment in part and grant a new trial for the determination of certain things which the court deems undetermined therein, or erroneously determined. (Farmers' Co-operative Ditch Co. v. Riverside Irr. Dist., 16 Idaho 525, 102 P. 481.)
The law governing the case at bar is laid down in the cases of Boise Irr. & Land Co. v. Stewart, 10 Idaho 38, 77 P. 25, 321, and Farmers' Co-operative Ditch Co. v. Riverside Irr. Dist., 14 Idaho 450, 94 P. 761.
On January 18, 1906, a judgment was rendered by the district court of the third judicial district (now the seventh judicial district), in and for Canyon county, in the case of Farmers' Co-operative Ditch Company, Plaintiff, v. Riverside Irrigation District, Limited, W. H. Ridenbaugh et al., Defendants, by which judgment there was assessed against defendants W. H. Ridenbaugh and A. Rossi the sum of $ 962.50, as the pro rata share to be borne by them of the total expense incurred by the state engineer of Idaho in making surveys under authority of the act of the legislature of March 11, 1903 (1903 Sess. Laws, pp. 223-252), in connection with said action, for use in determining the priorities of the users of water on the Boise river and for the purpose of fixing the duty of water.
The state engineer, in the course of making these surveys, and prior to the rendition of the judgment above mentioned, from time to time issued some 73 so-called certificates of indebtedness to persons furnishing services or supplies in connection with the surveys, and at the time of the commencement of the trial of this cause in the lower court plaintiff, Idaho Trust and Savings Bank, was the owner and in rightful possession of some 59 such certificates, which had been assigned to it by the original holders thereof; plaintiff Carl Maughmer was the owner and in rightful possession of 3 certificates, which had been issued to him; and the remaining 11 certificates were held by other parties.
The judgment of January 18, 1906, was appealed from by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, and affirmed, in the case of Farmers' Co-operative Ditch Co. v. Riverside Irr. Dist., 14 Idaho 450, 94 P. 761. Thereafter certain other defendants moved for a new trial, and their motion was denied, and they appealed, and were granted a rehearing by this court for the "sole and only purpose of determining the duty of water on the two classes of land involved, . . . . namely, bench and bottom lands." (Farmers' Co-operative Ditch Co. v. Riverside Irr. Dist., 16 Idaho 525, 102 P. 481.)
On January 17, 1912, the Idaho Trust & Savings Bank, being the owner of 59 certificates assigned to it as aforesaid, brought suit against the defendant, who is the appellant here, to recover the amount of the judgment for costs entered against him for $ 962.50, with interest thereon. During the course of the trial of the action, nine of the eleven unpaid certificates held by other parties than the respondent were paid by the state engineer to the respective holders thereof. The amount of the two remaining certificates, held by other parties, together with interest thereon, was paid by the state engineer into court for the holders thereof, and 23 of the 59 certificates held by the Idaho Trust & Savings Bank were paid by the state engineer to said bank, so that at the termination of the action in the trial court 35 certificates were held by the Idaho Trust & Savings Bank and 3 certificates were held by Carl Maughmer, who was subsequently joined as plaintiff, and were the only remaining unpaid certificates representing indebtedness incurred by the state engineer covered by the judgment of January 18, 1906. The total amount of these certificates was $ 2,207.00, and interest thereon, while the judgment against the defendant was for $ 962.50 and interest.
The trial court found, in its findings of fact, among other things, that the parties to this action are the only parties in interest; that they were properly joined; that the pending hearing for the determination of the duty of water upon bench and bottom lands does not affect this action in any manner that the parties plaintiffs are the legal and equitable owners of the judgment of January 18, 1906, and entitled to sue thereon; that the cause is not barred by the statute of limitations, and that the defendant Ridenbaugh is liable...
To continue reading
Request your trial