State ex rel. Alexander-Coplin & Co. v. Superior Court for King County

• Decision Date: 25 May 1936
• Docket Number: 26123.
• Citation: 186 Wash. 354,57 P.2d 1262
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ALEXANDER-COPLIN & CO. et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR KING COUNTY.

57 P.2d 1262

186 Wash. 354

STATE ex rel. ALEXANDER-COPLIN & CO. et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR KING COUNTY.

No. 26123.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 25, 1936

Department 1.

Petition by the State, on the relation of Alexander-Coplin & Co. and others, for a writ of prohibition to prevent the Superior Court for King County, Hon. James T. Lawler, Judge, from proceeding further with a cause pending Before it.

Petition denied.

Hamlet P. Dodd, of Seattle, and Thomas E. Meade, for plaintiffs.

Clarence J. Coleman, of Everett, and Mifflin & Mifflin and Dills &amp Broenkow, all of Seattle, for respondent.

STEINERT Justice.

Relators filed a petition in this court for a writ of prohibition to prevent the superior court of King county from proceeding further with a cause pending Before it. Based upon the petition, an order to show cause directed to the lower court was issued. In due time the court made a return to the order. The matter is now Before us on the petition with accompanying exhibits and the return.

The facts are these: On or about December 1, 1933, one David G Bennie, as plaintiff, brought an action in the superior court of King county against all the relators herein and certain other persons to recover damages for fraud in the sale and manipulation of certain corporate stocks. The complaint alleged that the defendants in the action (relators here) had entered into a conspiracy among themselves to foist upon the public, and particularly upon the plaintiff, at grossly excessive prices, certain mining stock owned by defendants; that in pursuance of such conspiracy defendants had established brokerage houses in various cities throughout the United States, including the city of Seattle that they had effectually consummated the designs of the conspiracy through fraudulent misrepresentations made to the public, including plaintiff, concerning their methods of doing business and the services to be rendered by them as security brokers; that, by such means, defendants had induced plaintiff to purchase a large amount of the mining stock at defendants' Seattle office, resulting in a loss to plaintiff of $42,500; and that, after the fraud had been fully perpetrated, defendants closed their offices in Seattle and decamped.

At the time of the commencement of that action, none of the relators herein were residents of, or were doing business in, this state.

It further appears that, some months Before the commencement of the superior court action, the relators had been charged by a federal grand jury, sitting at Seattle, with an offense, or offenses, growing out of the general subject matter involved in the civil action just referred to. After service of federal warrants upon them, relators gave bond for their appearance. Trial in the criminal action was held in the United States District Court at Seattle, beginning September 3, 1935, and lasting until December 25, 1935. While that trial was in progress, and while relators were in attendance thereon, they were served with summons and complaint in the civil action brought by Bennie.

The relators made special appearance in the superior court and moved to quash the service of process upon them, on the grounds that they were nonresidents of Washington, that, at the time of the service upon them, they were not in Seattle voluntarily but solely because of the trial in which they were defendants, in response to federal warrants, and that they had never abandoned their residences in other states. The court denied the motion, and it is this ruling that is complained of in the petition Before us.

The question presented to us for determination is whether or not the relators, during the time that they were in attendance as defendants on trial in the criminal action pending in the federal court were entitled to immunity from service of process issuing from a state court in a civil action brought therein against them.

We shall first answer the question and then give our reasons. The relators were not entitled to immunity from service of such process.

There are few questions in the entire field of law that are more provocative of argument and more illustrative of differences in judicial opinion than the question of the validity of service of process upon nonresidents temporarily within a particular state. In Netograph Manufacturing Co. v Scrugham, 197 N.Y 377, 90 N.E. 962, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 333, 134 Am.St.Rep. 886, where the same question arose under facts very similar to those Before us here, the court said: 'This question, based upon the undisputed facts of this record, is very narrow,...