Rieger v. Abrams
Decision Date | 22 August 1917 |
Docket Number | 14147. |
Citation | 98 Wash. 72,167 P. 76 |
Parties | RIEGER v. ABRAMS. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John S. Jurey Judge.
Action by Mattie Rieger against Robert Abrams. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
F. W Crary and Carl E. Croson, both of Seattle, for appellant.
Hughes McMicken, Dovell & Ramsey, of Seattle, for respondent.
The plaintiff, Mattie Rieger, seeks recovery of damages from the defendant, Robert Abrams, for breach of promise of marriage which she alleges was made by him and accepted by her. Judgment was rendered by the superior court for King county in his favor, denying the relief prayed for by her, upon the facts admitted in the pleadings. The judgment was rendered upon motion made in that behalf, and rested upon the theory that the facts so admitted showed that, in another action prosecuted by her in that court, a judgment was rendered which became a final adjudication of her rights in the premises. From this disposition of the cause the plaintiff has appealed to this court.
The record before us contains so many pleadings, amendments motions, and interlocutory orders, both in this action and in the former one (those in the former being brought into this one by allegations in the pleadings herein), that we have found it necessary to exercise caution to the end that the real question here for determination be not clouded by irrelevant facts. Let us first notice the real issues ultimately presented by the final pleadings in each of these actions for determination upon the merits, leaving out of mind all preceding pleadings, motions, and orders. We think it will appear as we proceed that the latter are of no moment here.
Appellant in her final amended complaint in this action, after alleging that at all times in question both she and respondent were over 21 years old and unmarried, alleges:
Respondent in his final second amended answer to appellant's amended complaint, after denying the allegations thereof above quoted, alleges as a second affirmative defense facts showing the commencement and prosecution to final judgment in the superior court for King county of an action by appellant against him as follows: In appellant's final third amended complaint in that action, a copy of which is made part of respondent's affirmative defense in this action, she alleged:
Respondent answered in that action, denying the allegations of appellant's final third amended complaint therein, a copy of which answer is made part of his affirmative defense in this action. Upon the issues so made in that action trial was had in the superior court for King county sitting with a jury, resulting in verdict and judgment therein awarding appellant $500 damages. Shortly thereafter respondent paid that judgment, including all costs taxed therein against him, and satisfaction thereof was duly entered of record.
In her amended reply to this affirmative defense set up by respondent in this action, appellant admits, as alleged by respondent, the filing of her second amended complaint and the filing of appellant's answer thereto as constituting the final pleadings in that action, the rendering of the final judgment therein awarding her $500 damages,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kralick v. Shuttleworth
...being based on the same facts. (Lanigan v. Neely, 4 Cal.App. 760, 89 P. 441; Osmun v. Winters, 25 Ore. 260, 35 P. 250; Rieger v. Abrams, 98 Wash. 72, 167 P. 76, L. R. 1918A, 362; Warner v. Benham, 126 Wash. 393, 34 A. L. R. 1358, 218 P. 260; Grubbs' Admr. v. Sult, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 203, 34 Am......
-
Warner v. Benham
... ... 397] in ... most of the cases which we will hereinafter cite. Indeed, ... this court, in Rieger v. Abrams, 98 Wash. 72, 167 P ... 76, L. R. A. 1918A, 362, said: ... 'While an action to recover damages for breach of promise ... ...