Rehmke v. Fogarty
| Decision Date | 19 February 1910 |
| Citation | 107 P. 184,57 Wash. 412 |
| Parties | REHMKE v. FOGARTY et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Kittitas County; E. B. Preble Judge.
Action by Henry Rehmke, administrator of Walter A. Bull, deceased against John B. Fogarty and others. From a judgment of dismissal and from an order denying motion for judgment plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
L. A Vincent, for appellant.
Henry J. Snively, for respondents.
Appeal from judgment of dismissal for want of prosecution, and from order denying motion for judgment on pleadings.
The action was commenced October 8, 1900, to foreclose a mortgage dated October 10, 1894, given to secure the payment of a note dated October 9, 1894, and due one day after date. Defendants appeared, filed answers, and the cause was set for trial. At the trial the court made an order directing the bringing in of a new party, which order was filed September 8, 1902, an amended complaint was filed on the same day, and on September 15th the new parties filed an answer. No steps were taken in the cause until September 22, 1908, when defendant Fogarty moved to dismiss for want of prosecution. April 8, 1909 plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, and on April 22, 1909, the court denied judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed the action for want of prosecution. Affidavits seem to have been presented to the court upon the hearing of the motion to dismiss; but, no statement of facts having been brought up, we are unable to review what was before the court at the hearing, and are confined to the motions and rulings thereon.
From the record before us we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in granting the motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. There seems to have been little, if any, diligence displayed in the commencement of the action and its prosecution thereafter More than six years elapsed from the filing of answers before any other steps were taken, and then it is defendants who move to dismiss. In Langford v. Murphey, 30 Wash. 499, 70 P. 1112, no move was made in the case for seven years, and in First National Bank v. Hunt, 40 Wash. 190, 82 P. 285, nothing was done for three years, and we sustained a dismissal upon the ground here urged. These cases are decisive of the appeal. Having reached this conclusion, we do not review the ruling of the lower court on the motion for judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Congdon v. Aumiller
... ... prosecution. Neff v. Neff, 32 Wash. 82, 72 P. 1011; ... Arthur v. Washington Water Power Co., 42 Wash. 431, ... 85 P. 28; Rehmke v. Fogarty, 57 Wash. 412, 107 P ... 184 ... As said ... by the Supreme Court of California in a case also closely ... ...
-
State ex rel. Johnstone v. District Court, Lewis & Clark County
...diligent prosecution. Neff v. Neff, 32 Wash. 82, 72 P. 1011; Arthur v. Washington Water Power Co., 42 Wash. 431, 85 P. 28; Rehmke v. Fogarty, 57 Wash. 412, 107 P. 184. As said by the Supreme Court of California in a case also closely analogous to this: "But it is said that it was not the du......
-
Greenwood v. Puget Mill Co.
...1112; Hoffmeister v. Renton Co-op. Coal Co., 40 Wash. 48, 82 P. 127; First National Bank v. Hunt, 40 Wash. 190, 82 P. 285; Rehmke v. Fogarty, 57 Wash. 412, 107 P. 184. pointed out in Arthur v. Washington Water Power Co., 42 Wash. 431, 85 P. 28, the appellant having brought the action, the '......
-
Peterson v. Parker
...the holdings of this court in similar cases, did not abuse its discretion. Langford v. Murphey, 30 Wash. 499, 70 P. 1112; Rehmke v. Fogarty, 57 Wash. 412, 107 P. 184; Loving v. Maltbie, 64 Wash. 336, 116 P. Greenwood v. Puget Mill Co., 111 Wash. 464, 191 P. 393. The next question relates to......