Standard Furniture Co. v. Van Alstine

• Citation: 31 Wash. 499,72 P. 119
• Parties: STANDARD FURNITURE CO. v. VAN ALSTINE et al.
• Decision Date: 03 April 1903
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

72 P. 119

31 Wash. 499

STANDARD FURNITURE CO. v. VAN ALSTINE et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 3, 1903

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

Action by the Standard Furniture Company against Con Van Alstine and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Ballinger, Ronald & Battle and Richard Winsor, for appellants.

Richard Osborn and Preston, Carr & Gilman, for respondent.

MOUNT J.

Action in equity to restrain the collection of a judgment at law. Plaintiff had judgment below. Defendants appeal.

The judgment appealed from restrained the levy of an execution issued upon a judgment of nonsuit in an action for replevin wherein a judgment was rendered against respondent and in favor of the appellant Van Alstine for the return of certain goods or their value, $800. The facts are not disputed, and are substantially as follows: On May 14, 1898, Lou Mehaffey and Emma Norton were conducting a house of prostitution in the city of Seattle. On that date they purchased a bill of household goods from the Standard Furniture Company respondent here, under a conditional bill of sale. The vendees were to pay a certain sum in cash, and monthly payments thereafter until the goods were paid for, the title of the goods to remain in the vendor until the purchase price was fully paid. At this time Lou Mehaffey was married to a man by the name of Con Van Alstine, but maintained the name of Lou Mehaffey. Her marital relations were not known to the respondent. After the goods were sold, Lou Mehaffey (Van Alstine) brought an action for divorce against her husband. He appeared in the action, and filed a cross-complaint for divorce against his wife, and prayed judgment therein against her and Emma Norton and others for a large amount of money which he claimed was fraudulently obtained from his possession. Upon the trial of that cause the court rendered judgment against Lou Mehaffey Van Alstine and Emma Norton for the sum of $30,965. An appeal was taken from that judgment. Pending the appeal in this court Con Van Alstine issued an execution on his judgment, and, without notice or knowledge to the Standard Furniture Company, levied upon and sold the goods above referred to in possession of Lou Mehaffey Van Alstine and Emma Norton at sheriff's sale, and became the purchaser himself. Thereupon, and while the case of Van Alstine v. Van Alstine was pending on appeal in this court, the Standard Furniture Company brought an action in replevin against Con Van Alstine for the goods, giving a bond under the statute, and taking possession thereof pending the trial of the cause. Upon the trial of this last-named cause, it appearing to the trial court that the plaintiff, the Standard Furniture Company, had sold the goods in question to be used for an immoral purpose, the court, upon its own motion, dismissed the case, and entered judgment in favor of the defendant Van Alstine for the return of the goods, or their value, $800. This case was also appealed to this court, and the judgment affirmed, July 25, 1900. Standard Furniture Co. v. Van Alstine, 22 Wash. 670, 62 P. 145, 51 L. R. A. 889, 79 Am. St. Rep. 960. Subsequently, and on November 24, 1900, this court reversed the divorce case of Van Alstine v. Van Alstine, and ordered the action dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the lower court. Van Alstine v. Van Alstine, 23 Wash. 310, 63 P. 243. The Standard Furniture Company still retained possession of the goods in question, and, prior to the bringing of this action, had a settlement with Lou Mehaffey and Emma Norton, who surrendered to respondent all claim to the goods. Thereafter, and prior to the bringing of this action, Mr. Van Alstine issued an execution on the judgment in the replevin case, and was threatening to collect the sum of $800 from the plaintiff, when the plaintiff brought this action, setting up the facts above stated, and, further, that plaintiff was not a party to the suit of Van Alstine v. Van Alstine, and at the time of the trial in the replevin case of Standard Furniture Company v. Van Alstine had no opportunity to plead the invalidity of the judgment in the case of Van Alstine v. Van Alstine et al.; that the said judgment was null, and gave the defendant in the replevin case no title or right to the goods or the judgment for $800.

It is conceded that the appellant Van Alstine was and had been a nonresident of this state for a year prior to the time of the trial, and has no property within the jurisdiction of this court; and also that the respondent has 'no other or adequate remedy at law or otherwise for its protection against the threatened acts of the defendants, nor to secure the relief prayed for, except by this action.' The appellants here rely largely upon the fact that the immoral nature of the contract by which respondent sold the goods to Lou Mehaffey and Emma Norton deprives respondent of a remedy to relieve itself from the judgment for $800 in the action for replevin, viz., Standard Furniture Co. v. Van Alstine. Many authorites are cited to the effect that, where a contract is void as against public policy, it will not be enforced. But these cases are not in point in this action. Respondent is not seeking to enforce that contract. Whether it was a legal or an illegal contract can make no difference here. Respondent is relying upon another...