Pacific Iron & Steel Works v. Goerig

• Decision Date: 04 October 1909
• Citation: 104 P. 151,55 Wash. 149
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: PACIFIC IRON & STEEL WORKS v. GOERIG.

104 P. 151

55 Wash. 149

PACIFIC IRON & STEEL WORKS v. GOERIG.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 4, 1909

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; George E. Morris Judge.

Action by the Pacific Iron & Steel Works against A. C. Goerig. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

James T. Lawler, for appellant.

S.D Wingate and John Wesley Dolby, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

The respondent repaired a certain steam shovel at the request of the appellant, furnishing the necessary labor and material therefor. The work and labor was not paid for on its completion, and, to secure payment, the respondent filed a lien upon the shovel under the act of March 6, 1905 (Laws 1905, p. 137, c. 72); the lien substantially conforming in form and substance to the requirements of the statute. Later on it began suit to foreclose the lien, averring in its complaint that it furnished the labor and material at the instance and request of the appellant; he being the owner of the steam shovel. Issue was taken on the allegations of the complaint, and the case set down for trial before that department of the court then sitting for the trial of causes of equitable cognizance. At the trial the respondent introduced evidence tending to show that it repaired the shovel at the instance and request of the appellant, that the reasonable value of the labor and materials required for that purpose was the amount alleged in the complaint, and that no part thereof had been paid, but failed to show any fact tending to establish a lien upon the shovel for the materials furnished or work performed. When the respondent rested, the appellant moved to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction, contending that since the respondent had failed to offer any evidence tending to establish the lien his action became one at law, of which the equity department was without jurisdiction to hear or determine. The motion was overruled, whereupon the appellant offered evidence in his own behalf, the trial finally resulting in findings and a judgment in the respondent's favor.

It is first assigned that the court erred in exercising jurisdiction over the cause. It is argued that, since the case was begun as a suit in equity to foreclose a lien, the court was without jurisdiction to determine it as an action at law to recover a money judgment. But this position is not tenable. The court unquestionably had jurisdiction of the action and the right to proceed with its trial upon the merits. If the appellant had asked for a jury trial on the legal questions involved after the appellant had abandoned the lien, the trial court might properly have granted the motion even to the extent of postponing the trial to a later time, especially as the respondent introduced no evidence to establish its lien, but no error was committed in refusing to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

It is next objected that the court was without authority to enter a personal judgment against the appellant, but manifestly there was nothing inherent in the proceedings that...