Merrell v. Hamilton Produce Co. of Moses Lake, 35246
| Decision Date | 25 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 35246,35246 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Victor L. MERRELL, Respondent, v. HAMILTON PRODUCE COMPANY OF MOSES LAKE, a corporation, Defendant, and Travelers Indemnity Company, Appellant. |
Whitmore & Whitmore, Wenatchee, for appellant.
No appearance for respondent.
The factual background of this action involves what might be called the Hamilton enterprises, which consist of five corporations, two partnerships, and serveral individual owners. They were all in financial difficulties and were being pressed by numerous creditors. Forty separate suits were pending, and the Hamilton enterprises are now going through bankruptcy proceedings.
Victor L. Merrell brought this action for $6,150.68 against the Hamilton Produce Company of Moses Lake and The Travelers Indemnity Company, and took a default judgment against Travelers for that amount.
The Travelers Indemnity Company was surety for Hamilton Produce Company of Moses Lake, one of the corporations in the Hamilton group, upon a statutory commission merchant's bond in the amount of ten thousand dollars, which was furnished pursuant to the provisions of RCW 20.12. The creditors of the Hamilton Produce Company of Moses Lake were pressing claims aggregating approximately five times the amount of the bond. Merrell's default judgment in his separate action greatly exceeded his prorata share of the amount of the bond.
The Travelers Indemnity Company almost immediately after default judgment was entered commenced an action in the federal District Court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 5022, § 1335 (the Federal interpleader statute), for the purpose of prorating the amount of the bond among the twenty creditors, who were entitled to benefits thereunder.
Accordingly, The Travelers Indemnity Company moved to vacate the default judgment so as to be able to effectively bring Merrell under the provisions of the Federal interpleader statute. It has appealed from the court's denial of its motion.
Appellant's claim for relief is based upon RCW 4.32.240, which provides, inter alia:
'* * * The court * * * upon affidavit showing good cause therefor * * * may, upon such terms as may be just, and upon payment of costs, relieve a party, or his legal representativies, from a judgment, order or other proceeding taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.' (Italics ours.)
The excuse advanced for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Firl
...v. Cosby , 73 Wash.2d 825, 828, 440 P.2d 831 (1968). Legal defenses can be conclusive defenses. E.g. , Merrell v. Hamilton Produce Co. , 55 Wash.2d 684, 686, 349 P.2d 597 (1960) (surety's defense to damages awarded was its statutory right to have claims exceeding the face value of its bond ......
-
Commercial Courier Service, Inc. v. Miller
...The more conclusively such defense can be shown, the more readily the court will vacate the default judgment. Merrell v. Hamilton Produce Co., 55 Wash.2d 684, 349 P.2d 597 (1960); Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. McKinsey, 71 Wash.2d 650, 430 P.2d 584 (1967); Yeck v. Department of Labor & In......
-
Beckett v. Cosby, 39183
...The more conclusively such defense can be shown, the more readily the court will vacate the default judgment. Merrell v. Hamilton Produce Co., 55 Wash.2d 684, 349 P.2d 597 (1960); Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. McKinsey, 71 Wash.Dec.2d 637, 430 P.2d 584 (1967); Yeck v. Department of Labor ......
-
White v. Holm
...v. Defiance Lumber Co., 142 Wash. 642, 253 P. 1088 (1927); Yeck v. Department of Labor & Indus., supra; Merrell v. Hamilton Produce Co., 55 Wash.2d 684, 349 P.2d 597 (1960). In the instant case, it cannot be said that defendants, by the affidavits submitted in support of their motion, have ......