Pedigo v. Fuller

• Citation: 37 Wash. 529,79 P. 1129
• Parties: PEDIGO v. FULLER et al.
• Decision Date: 22 March 1905
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

79 P. 1129

37 Wash. 529

PEDIGO v. FULLER et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 22, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; George C. Hatch, Judge.

Action by George Pedigo against Annie L. Fuller and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Heard on motion to dismiss. Appeal dismissed.

Fullerton J., dissenting.

Palmer & Thomas, for appellants.

Sachs &amp Hale, for respondent.

HADLEY J.

This is an action foreclosing a general tax lien. Judgment by default was entered August 31, 1900. Nearly three years afterwards on June 8, 1903, certain of the defendants filed a motion to vacate the order of default and the judgment. The motion was denied on July 14, 1903. Thereafter on September 22d of the same year, said defendants filed a so-called petition for a reconsideration of the order denying the motion to vacate. The court refused to grant the petition on September 26th. Thereafter, on October 9th, said defendants served notice of appeal from the order of July 13th, and also from the order of September 26th refusing to reconsider the first order. Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal for the reason that it was not taken in time. It will be seen that when the appeal was taken more than 30 days had elapsed since the entry of the order denying the motion to vacate. This being a tax foreclosure proceeding, the point raised is the same as that considered by this court in Brown v. Davis, 78 P. 779. We there held that an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a tax foreclosure judgment is governed, as to the time of taking it, by the provisions of the revenue statute, and must be taken within 30 days. The same rule applies here, unless, for reasons hereinafter stated, this case should be distinguished from the one cited.

It will be remembered that, some time after the entry of the order denying the motion to vacate, a petition for the reconsideration of that order was presented and denied. Did the petition and last order have the effect to enlarge the time for appeal from the order denying the vacation? We think not. The petition for reconsideration was an effort to get the court to vacate the order by which it denied the vacation of the judgment. A decision upon the petition involved the same legal questions that were decided upon the motion to vacate. The proceeding by the petition for reconsideration is unknown to our practice, so far as we are informed. If such a...