Marsh v. West Fir Logging Co., 22034.

• Decision Date: 14 October 1929
• Docket Number: 22034.
• Citation: 281 P. 340,154 Wash. 137
• Parties: MARSH v. WEST FIR LOGGING CO. et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

281 P. 340

154 Wash. 137

MARSH v. WEST FIR LOGGING CO. et al.

No. 22034.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 14, 1929

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Mason County; John M. Wilson, Judge.

Action in replevin by L. O. Marsh against the West Fir Logging Company and another. From an order denying defendants' petition to vacate judgment theretofore rendered, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Edwin H. Flick and Stanley Kent, both of Seattle, for appellants.

J. W Graham, of Shelton, for respondent.

BEALS, J.

This is an action in replevin, plaintiff in his complaint alleging that he is the owner of certain personal property which he purchased at a sheriff's sale held pursuant to an execution issued in an action between certain persons who are not parties to this proceeding. Plaintiff also alleges the detention of the personal property by defendants, to his damage in an amount which he sets forth. As shown by the sheriff's return, the summons and complaint were regularly served upon the defendants who failed to appear in the action within the time limited by law. Plaintiff having moved for default, such an order was entered together with findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment in accordance with the prayer of plaintiff's complaint adjudging plaintiff to be the owner of the personal property therein described and awarding plaintiff damages for the detention thereof. A few days after the entry of this judgment defendants served and filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint, together with their petition for a vacation of the judgment. To this petition plaintiff demurred upon the ground that the same did not state facts sufficient to justify the granting of the relief prayed for therein by defendants. The trial court, after argument, entered an order sustaining plaintiff's demurrer and denying defendants' petition, from which order defendants appeal.

The order appealed from is general in its terms, simply reciting that the court had heard the arguments of counsel, had taken the matter under advisement, and considered the briefs submitted upon the questions of law involved.

In reviewing the ruling of the trial court complained of by appellants we are, of course, confined to the record, and cannot consider statements dehors the same. No bill of exceptions or statement of facts has been brought before us. Several affidavits filed on behalf of appellants are contained in the transcript, but,...