Picardo v. Peck

• Decision Date: 03 April 1917
• Docket Number: 13800.
• Citation: 95 Wash. 474,164 P. 65
• Parties: PICARDO et ux. v. PECK.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

164 P. 65

95 Wash. 474

PICARDO et ux. v. PECK.

No. 13800.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 3, 1917

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman Judge.

Action by Pasquale Picardo and wife against H. E. Peck. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

C. A Schneider, of Seattle, for appellant.

Horace A. Wilson, of Seattle, for respondents.

MORRIS J.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of respondents in an action to quiet title. Respondents' title is based upon two deeds from the sheriff of King county in mortgage foreclosure proceedings. Appellant claims under an assignment of a deficiency judgment against one of the defendants in the foreclosure proceedings on which execution had been levied on the property and a certificate of sale issued to appellant. The suit in which the deficiency judgment was entered under which appellant claims was for unlawful detainer and rent commenced by one Siepman under a power of attorney from one Elsholtz. This action was commenced March 10, 1909. Subsequently in probate proceedings upon the estate of Elsholtz it was judicially determined that Elsholtz died November 15, 1907. The evidentiary effect of this probate decree was determined by this court in Wagner v. Alderson, 91 Wash. 157, 157 P. 476, where it was held the decree adjudging the fact and time of Elsholtz's death was prima facie proof of the facts determined in a subsequent action brought against the administrator in his representative capacity. This case is determinative of this appeal in so far as the death of Elsholtz was a decisive feature, as there was no showing below which would to any extent overcome this prima facie proof. If Elsholtz was dead, the judgment under which appellant claims was void for want of jurisdiction of the parties. In order to give that jurisdiction which in all cases is essential to the validity of a judgment there must be jurisdiction of the plaintiff as well as of the defendant. Lack of jurisdiction in the one case is as fatal to the jurisdiction of the court as lack of jurisdiction in the other. It matters not that such judgment is attacked collaterally. 'A void judgment may be attacked collaterally as well as directly. It is entitled to no consideration whatever in any court as evidence of right.' Kizer v. Caufield, 17 Wash. 417, 49 P 1064.

It follows that the judgment must be and is affirmed.

ELLIS C.J., and MAIN and WEBSTE...