In re Clifford

• Decision Date: 13 March 1905
• Citation: 79 P. 1001,37 Wash. 460
• Parties: In re CLIFFORD. v. WILLIAMS et ux. CLIFFORD
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

79 P. 1001

37 Wash. 460

In re CLIFFORD.

CLIFFORD v. WILLIAMS et ux.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 13, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman, Judge.

Proceedings for the adoption of Alice B. Clifford, an infant, by Herbert O. Williams and wife, in which Peter A. Clifford filed a petition against said Williams and wife to vacate the order of adoption. From an order dismissing the petition petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

W. H. White and J. J. Burt, for appellant.

Sweeney & Steiner, for respondents.

RUDKIN J.

On the 20th day of January, 1904, the petitioner sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the superior court of King county to obtain the custody and control of his minor daughter, Alice B. Clifford. The defendants, Herbert O. Williams and Grace E Williams, made return to said writ; claiming the right to the custody and control of said minor by virtue of a decree of adoption theretofore entered in the superior court of said county, and for other reasons not material to be stated here. At the hearing had on the writ and the return thereto, the court dissolved the writ and awarded the care and custody of said minor to the defendants above named. On the 8th day of January 1904, the petitioner filed in the superior court of said county his petition praying that the order or decree of adoption theretofore entered in said court on the 12th day of November, 1903, whereby the said minor was adopted by the defendants herein, be vacated and set aside. The defendants filed their answer to said petition to vacate and, upon the hearing had thereon, the court made the following finding: 'That on or about the 20th day of January, 1904, the petitioner, Peter A. Clifford, filed in the superior court of the state of Washington, for King county, in the cause No. 41,727, entitled 'Peter A. Clifford, Petitioner, vs. Herbert O. Williams and Grace E. Williams His Wife, Respondents,' a petition praying for habeas corpus for the purpose of bringing the body of Alice B. Clifford before the court to abide such order as the court might direct. That all the issues raised in the petition to set aside the decree of adoption now under consideration were raised in said petition for a writ of habeas corpus. That to said petition for a writ of habeas corpus respondents made a full and complete return, and that upon said petition and return, and the issues thereby raised, a full and complete hearing was had in said superior court on the 20th day of January, 1904. That all the matters and things, including the validity of said decree of adoption, were raised and fully presented to the court in said cause No. 41,727, and by said court passed on and adjudicated. That the parties before the court in said cause No. 41,727 were identical with the parties now before the court. That no new facts have since arisen, and that the issues now before the court are, in consequence of said proceedings in cause No. 41,727, res adjudicata.' And the petition was accordingly dismissed. From the order of dismissal this appeal is taken.

No exception was taken to the above finding, and therefore the only question before this court is the sufficiency of said finding to support the order appealed from. Montesano v Blair, 12 Wash. 188, 40 P. 731; Fremont Milling Co. v. Denny, 12 Wash. 251, 40 P. 1062; and numerous other cases in this court. If the validity of this decree or order of adoption was directly in issue in another proceeding between the same parties in a court of competent jurisdiction, and the validity of such order or decree was there adjudicated and determined, it would seem to require no argument to show that such adjudication was binding upon the parties to this proceeding, and that the judgment of dismissal was properly entered. 'It is a fundamental and unquestioned rule that a former judgment, when used as evidence in a second action between the same parties or their privies, is conclusive upon every question of fact which was directly involved within the issues made in such former action, and which is shown to have been...