Remington v. Price

• Decision Date: 16 November 1895
• Citation: 13 Wash. 76,42 P. 527
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: REMINGTON v. PRICE ET AL.

42 P. 527

13 Wash. 76

REMINGTON v. PRICE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 16, 1895

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; John C. Stallcup, Judge.

Action by Arthur Remington, receiver, etc., against James H. Price and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Parsons Corell & Parsons, for appellant.

Crowley & Sullivan and Snell & Bedford, for respondents.

DUNBAR J.

This is an action by a receiver to obtain possession of certain property in the hands of the sheriff for the purpose of managing and controlling said property, the prayer being for an injunction restraining the sale by said sheriff; the sheriff having possession by virtue of an execution issued on several different judgments, which the plaintiffs alleged to have been fraudulently and illegally obtained.

We will first notice the purely legal questions involved, the first being a question of practice, viz. an error assigned by the appellant, that the court erred in rendering any judgment without finding the facts in issue upon which the judgment was based. This contention was disposed of adversely to the claim of appellant in Plaster Co. v. Johnson, 10 Wash. 445, 39 P. 115, where we held that an objection that no finding of facts was made by the court in an action tried by it cannot be urged on appeal, unless there has been a request for a finding, or an objection raised for want of one when presented in the court below. The record in this case does not show that such objection was interposed. There was, as shown by the record, request for a finding; but it was a request, not for a general finding by the court, but for particular findings suggested by the appellant, and whether the court erred in refusing those particular findings we will notice hereafter.

The next contention is that the judgments were void under the statute providing for the confession of judgments without action, in that they were not in accordance with sections 418 and 419 of the Code of Procedure. This question was also decided adversely to appellant's contention in Bank v. Levy, 10 Wash. 499, 39 P. 142.

It is contended by the respondent that this action was a collateral attack on judgments rendered by the court having jurisdiction of the persons to the action and of the subject-matter, and hence could not be sustained. Without passing upon this question, however, we are satisfied from a thorough examination of the...