State ex rel. United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Superior Court of Cowlitz County

• Decision Date: 14 July 1938
• Docket Number: 27196.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF COWLITZ COUNTY et al.

81 P.2d 286

195 Wash. 426

STATE ex rel. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF COWLITZ COUNTY et al.

No. 27196.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 14, 1938

Department 2.

Original prohibition proceeding by the State of Washington, on the relation of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, a voluntary association, and another, against the Superior Court of Cowlitz County, Washington, and the Honorable Howard J. Atwell, judge of such Superior Court, to prevent the Superior Court and the presiding judge from making a proposed order and approving a proposed nonresidents' cost bond in an action pending in such court.

Writ of prohibition denied.

W. H Sibbald, of Kelso, for respondents.

STEINERT Chief Justice.

Relators seek a writ of prohibition from this court to prevent the superior court for Cowlitz county and the presiding judge thereof from making a proposed order and approving a proposed nonresidents' cost bond in an action pending in that court.

The record Before us discloses that one hundred fourteen individuals, as plaintiffs, are maintaining an action in the superior court for Cowlitz county against relators, as defendants, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful acts of relators as the result of which, it is averred, the plaintiffs were deprived of their union affiliations with the American Federation of Labor and, being thus 'blacklisted,' are now deprived of employment by their former employers and others.

In that suit each plaintiff set up a separate and distinct cause of action with a separate verification by each plaintiff, but all the causes of action are based on identical allegations of fact other than those relating to the amounts of damages claimed, which amounts range from five hundred dollars to $2,999.99 and aggregate approximately $100,000.

Pursuant to the demand of relators, and after a hearing, the court made a finding that fifty-three of the plaintiffs were not residents of Cowlitz county and, on the basis of such finding, entered an order directing each of such plaintiffs to furnish a nonresident security cost bond as required by statute and staying the cause of action of each until such bond was furnished and approved.

Thereafter the nonresident plaintiffs filed two motions, one requesting that the court enter an order permitting such plaintiffs to file one bond to cover the liability of all and the other requesting an order reducing the amount of the bond from the statutory sum of two hundred dollars per plaintiff.

Notwithstanding the objections interposed by relators, the court announced that it would grant the motions and would sign and enter a certain order presented by the plaintiffs containing the following provision: 'Now, therefore, it is ordered and adjudged that said nonresident plaintiffs shall file one cost bond in the amount of Two thousand dollars as heretofore ordered and that the condition of said bond shall be that they, said nonresident plaintiffs named herein, will pay the defendants, or either of them, all costs and charges that may be awarded against them, said nonresident plaintiffs, by judgment or in the progress of the above-entitled action, not exceeding said sum of Two thousand dollars.' The court further announced that it would approve the bond tendered by the plaintiffs, which bond was joint and several in form.

To prevent such action by the superior court, relators have applied to this court for a writ of prohibition.

Relators make two contentions: (1) That the court had no authority to reduce the amount of the bond to a sum less than two hundred dollars for each plaintiff; and (2) that the court had no authority to require or approve the bond offered by plaintiffs, which was joint and several in its form and obligation.

The answer to the first contention necessitates a consideration of two related statutes.

Rem.Rev.Stat § 495, so far as it is material here, provides as follows: 'When a plaintiff in an action * * * resides out of the county * * * as to all causes of action sued upon, security for the costs and charges which may be awarded against such plaintiff may be required by the defendant. * * * When required, all proceedings in the action * * * shall be stayed until a bond, executed by two or more persons, or by a surety company authorized to do business in this state be filed with the clerk, conditioned that they will pay such costs and charges as may be awarded against the plaintiff by judgment, or in the progress of the action or proceeding, not exceeding the sum of two hundred dollars. A new or additional bond may be ordered by the court or judge, upon proof that the original bond is unsufficient security, and proceedings in the action * * * stayed until such new or additional bond be executed and filed. * * *'

Were this the only statute on the subject, relators' first contention might be well-founded. Rem.Rev.Stat. § 958-4, however, provides: 'Whenever by statute a bond or other security is required for any purpose in an action or other proceeding in a court of record and if the party shall apply therefor, the court shall have power to prescribe the amount of the bond or other security notwithstanding any requirement of the statute; and in every such case money in an amount prescribed by the court may be deposited with the clerk in lieu of a bond. After a bond or other security shall have been given, the court in its discretion may require additional security either on its own motion or upon motion of an interested party or person. The courts shall exercise care to require adequate though not excessive security in every instance.'

The purport and purpose of this latter statute are to empower and enjoin the court to require, in every instance, adequate, though not excessive, security. This statute is so plain and positive that it leaves no room for construction or doubt.

Relators contend that Rem.Rev.Stat. § 958-4, does not apply to or govern those statutes, such as § 495, which set forth the conditions that must attach to the...