In re Pulver

• Decision Date: 20 February 1928
• Docket Number: 20952.
• Citation: 264 P. 406,146 Wash. 597
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: In re PULVER et ux.

264 P. 406

146 Wash. 597

In re PULVER et ux.

No. 20952.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 20, 1928

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Beals, Judge.

Supplemental proceeding by Alfred D. Johnson for the examination of Earl R. Pulver and wife, so that property might be brought to light and subjected to satisfaction of judgment against Earl R. Pulver and the marital community. Contempt judgments were rendered against defendants for refusing to answer questions and they bring prohibition proceeding and appeal. Affirmed.

Fullerton J., dissenting.

William H. Pemberton, Roy D. Robinson, and Karl H Kober, all of Seattle, for appellants.

Joseph C. Cheney, of Yakima, for respondent.

PARKER J.

This controversy first came into this court as a prohibition proceeding on the relation of Earl R. Pulver and Minnie C. Pulver, his wife, looking to the prohibiting of the enforcement of orders of the superior court for King county adjudging them to be in contempt of that court, and committing them to jail until they submit to examination and answer inquiries touching their property and finances in a supplemental proceeding pending in that court looking to the collection of a judgment rendered therein against Earl R. Pulver and their marital community. Before the prohibition proceeding was heard upon the merits in this court, the relators perfected appeals from the respective orders adjudging them to be in contempt. The contentions of the relators and appellants are the same in the prohibition proceeding as in their respective appeals; that is, that the superior court was wholly without jurisdiction to compel them to answer in the supplemental proceeding because the judgment upon which that proceeding was rested had been in legal effect wholly satisfied by the subsequent discharge in bankruptcy of Earl R. Pulver and the community awarded to them by the federal court of the Western District of this state. Because of this intimate relationship between the prohibition proceeding and these appeals, they have all been united and considered in this court as one case to be disposed of accordingly.

In August, 1923, Alfred D. Johnson commenced an action in the superior court for Yakima county seeking recovery of damages against Pulver and the community in the sum of $15,000, alleging, in substance: That on November 1, 1920, and for some time prior thereto, Pulver and the community were largely interested in and owned a considerable portion of the capital stock of a Montana mining company claiming to possess mining property of great value in the state of Montana; that Pulver maintained an office in the city of Yakima for the sale and disposal of treasury capital stock of that company; that Pulver, acting for the mutual financial benefit of himself and the community composed of himself and wife, made false and fraudulent representations to Johnson, thereby inducing Johnson to purchase 15,000 shares of the capital stock of that company and pay therefor the sum of $15,000. These allegations are followed by more specific allegations as to the nature of the alleged representations and their falsity and the worthlessness of the stock; all of which renders it plain that recovery in that action was sought wholly upon the theory that whatever liability arose, and for which recovery was therein sought, was rested upon Pulver's acting in behalf of himself and the community, and thus inducing Johnson to purchase the stock and thereby obtain from him the $15,000 by false representations. The prayer for judgment in that case was for recovery of $15,000 damages against Pulver and the community consisting of him and his wife. The case proceeded to trial before the court sitting with a jury, plainly upon the theory that whatever recovery should be awarded to Johnson would be upon the theory of Pulver having so obtained from him the $15,000 by false representations. This was ultimately further plainly evidenced by the instructions given by the court to the jury. The jury returned a verdict awarding to Johnson recovery in the sum of $15,000 as against Pulver and the community. On January 5, 1924, final judgment was accordingly rendered by the superior court for Yakima county upon that verdict. On March 25, 1924, Pulver and the community consisting of himself and wife were adjudged bankrupts by the federal District Court of the Western District of this state; this upon the voluntary petition of Pulver filed in behalf of himself and the community, he having scheduled among his liabilities the judgment rendered by the superior court for Yakima county in favor of Johnson, though not having scheduled that judgment in such manner as to show that it was rendered upon false representations. On June 9, 1924, upon due proceedings had in that behalf, Pulver and the community were by the federal District Court in the bankruptcy proceedings 'discharged from all debts and claims * * * excepting such debts as are by law excepted from a discharge in bankruptcy.' On July 8, 1925, which, it will be noticed, was more than one year after the discharge awarded by the federal court to Pulver and the community, Johnson, the judgment creditor, made application to the federal court in the bankruptcy proceeding to revoke the discharge of Pulver and the community awarded by that court, alleging that:

'Your petitioner, Johnson, has a provable debt against the bankrupts in the sum of $15,000, which debt is represented by a judgment obtained in favor of your petitioner Johnson and against the bankrupt Pulver rendered in the superior court of the state of Washington for Yakima county on January 5, 1924, which debt is scheduled by the bankrupts, and which debt will be affected by the discharge of the bankrupts,'

--and further alleging facts as ground for revocation of the discharge. This application, coming on for hearing in the federal court, was, on August 17, 1925, dismissed, the court in its order reciting, as ground therefor, that:

'The petition to revoke said discharge was not filed or served within one year subsequent to the date of the execution and filing of said discharge, and the same is barred.'

The judgment having been duly made of record in the superior court for King county, on July 15, 1927, Johnson instituted a supplemental proceeding in that court, looking to the examination of Pulver and wife, to the end that property might be brought to light and subjected to the satisfaction of the judgment; counsel for Johnson proceeding upon the theory that the judgment and the liability evidenced thereby had not been in law discharged by the general bankruptcy discharge awarded to Pulver and the community by the federal court. The supplemental proceeding coming on for hearing and Pulver and wife being present and refusing to answer questions touching their property and finances, in pursuance of advice of their counsel given upon the theory that the court had no jurisdiction because of the claimed satisfaction of that judgment and the discharge of the debt upon which it was rested, judgments for contempt were rendered against Pulver and wife committing them to imprisonment until they should submit to examination in the supplemental proceeding, as we have already noticed.

The only portions of our national Bankruptcy Law, necessary to notice in our present inquiry, referring to sections of title 11 relating to bankruptcy, of our new United States Code, are the following:

'32. Any person may, after the expiration of one month and within the next twelve months subsequent to being adjudged a bankrupt, file an application for a discharge in the court of bankruptcy in which the proceedings are pending. * * * The judge shall hear the application for a discharge and such proofs and pleas as may be made in opposition thereto

...