State v. Superior Court of Whitman County, 20391.

• Decision Date: 06 January 1927
• Docket Number: 20391.
• Citation: 252 P. 103,141 Wash. 651
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SHOOK v. SUPERIOR COURT OF WHITMAN COUNTY et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

252 P. 103

141 Wash. 651

STATE ex rel. SHOOK v. SUPERIOR COURT OF WHITMAN COUNTY et al.

No. 20391.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

January 6, 1927

Original application by the State, on the relation of Clement J Shook, as administrator of the estate of Jacob Shook deceased, for writ of mandate, to be directed to the Superior Court of Whitman County, Hon. R. L. McCroskey, Judge. Writ denied.

Kimball & Blake, of Spokane, for plaintiff.

John Pattison, of Spokane, Clegg & La Follette, of Colfax, and Danson, Lowe & Danson, of Spokane, for defendants.

MITCHELL J.

This is an original application for a writ of mandate. It appears that Clement J. Shook as administrator of the estate of Jacob Shook, deceased, commenced an action in the superior court for Whitman county for the recovery of damages for the death of Jacob Shook against Harry I. Hughes, Salem C. Bageant, and Robert H. Morrell, doing business as copartners under the firm name and style of 'Bageant & Morrell, Dodge Dealers Copartners,' Isabel Bageant, wife of Salem C. Bageant and Willene E. Morrell, wife of Robert H. Morrell. It was alleged in the complaint that the death of the decedent was caused in Spokane by the negligent driving of an automobile by defendant Hughes while engaged in business for the defendant partnership. The action was commenced in Whitman county because of the residence of the defendants in that county. Upon service of summons and complaint upon Hughes, Morrell, and his wife, they entered appearances in the case, whereupon and before any answer on their part to the merits the plaintiff filed a motion in the cause to transfer the trial of the case from Whitman county to Spokane county for the alleged reason 'that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be forwarded by such change.' The motion was supported by affidavits to the effect that a number of witnesses who were residents of Spokane would be necessary in the trial of the case and that their attendance upon the trial if it took place in Whitman county could not be compelled, and that plaintiff had no assurance that such witnesses would attend the trial voluntarily; that they were eyewitnesses of the accident out of which the cause of action arose or of facts and circumstances connected with it at or about that time all of whom would give evidence that was material and necessary in establishing plaintiff's cause of action. On the contrary, the defendants in the case who had appeared filed affidavits showing that they were residents of Whitman county, and that according to preparations...