Sanborn v. Centralia Furniture Mfg. Co.

• Citation: 31 P. 466,5 Wash. 150
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Decision Date: 01 November 1892
• Parties: SANBORN ET AL. v. CENTRALIA FURNITURE MANUF'G CO.

31 P. 466

5 Wash. 150

SANBORN ET AL. v. CENTRALIA FURNITURE MANUF'G CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 1, 1892

Appeal from superior court, Lewis county; EDWARD F. HUNTER, Judge.

Action by Sanborn, Vail & Co. against the Centralia Furniture Manufacturing Company on an account. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

H Julius Miller, for appellant.

Landrum & Landrum, for respondents.

HOYT J.

This appeal is brought to reverse the action of the court below in refusing to vacate and set aside a judgment rendered against appellant by reason of its default in not appearing and answering the complaint of plaintiffs, as required by the terms of the summons duly served upon it. The ground upon which relief was sought against such judgment was the alleged excusable neglect of defendant and its counsel. The allegation of the affidavit filed in support of the motion to vacate the judgment, so far as this question is concerned, was as follows, to wit: "We further say that the defendant has fully and fairly stated the case in this cause to Geo. E. Rhodes, Esq., defendant's counsel, who resides at Centralia, Washington, and employed said counsel to resist the claim of the plaintiffs, and conduct this suit to its close. That through the neglect of said counsel, or absence from Centralia, Wash., said counsel having been delayed, hindered, and detained at Mineral City, Washington defendant was prevented from appearing and answering this action. That, upon notice of default having been obtained by said plaintiffs, the defendant employed H. Julius Miller counsel residing at Centralia, Washington, by reason of the absence of said counsel Rhodes, and, after fully stating the case to my counsel, am advised by them that I have a good and substantial defense on the merits of the action, and verily believe the same to be true." And the question presented for us to decide is as to whether or not this showing so clearly established the fact that the defendant was entitled to be relieved against the judgment that the court below, in refusing such relief, abused the discretion vested in it. That questions of this kind are submitted to the sound judicial discretion of the court to which the application is addressed is conceded by appellant, and, this being so, it comes within that class of cases in which the appellate court will not interfere unless the action of the court below is so clearly...