State v. Superior Court of Snohomish County
| Decision Date | 07 December 1897 |
| Citation | 51 P. 365,18 Wash. 227 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. RUCKER v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY ET AL. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Application by Wyatt J. Rucker for a writ of review of the proceedings had in a cause in the superior court of Snohomish county wherein the J. F. Hart Lumber Company was plaintiff and said Wyatt J. Rucker was defendant. Application denied.
Crowley & Grosscup and Sullivan & Christian, for plaintiff.
Stiles & Harvey, for defendants.
An action at law was pending in the superior court of Snohomish county, in which the J. F. Hart Lumber Company was the plaintiff and the plaintiff here, Wyatt J. Rucker, was the defendant. The action was at issue upon the complaint answer, and reply. In December, 1896, the defendant in the action applied to have the cause assigned for trial. The plaintiff in the action objected to the case being set for trial on various grounds, and filed affidavits in support thereof. The court overruled the objections of the plaintiff in the action, and assigned the cause for the 28th of December, 1896. On the 18th of December both plaintiff and defendant appeared in the superior court and plaintiff moved that the order setting the cause for trial be vacated, which motion was overruled by the superior court, to which ruling the plaintiff excepted. On the 24th day of December defendant served notice upon the attorneys and plaintiff that defendant would proceed in the cause on the 28th of December 1896. When court convened on the 28th of December plaintiff appeared by one of its attorneys, and defendant by his attorneys. The court inquired if the parties were ready. Defendant replied that he was. Mr. Hart, attorney for the plaintiff, stated that he did not understand there was a jury in attendance in the court at the time. The court ascertained that the panel of the jury was not full and adjourned the cause until December 29th, when the cause was again called for trial. Mr. Hart, one of the attorneys for plaintiff, moved for continuance. This motion was overruled, and plaintiff excepted. The motion for continuance assigned the following grounds: (1) That the supreme court had issued its alternative writ of prohibition commanding the superior court to desist and abstain from further proceedings in the cause until the final disposition of the writ, on January 15, 1897; (2) that plaintiff was not, and could not be, prepared for trial before January 16, 1897; (3) that plaintiff had been misled by statements of the superior court; and the motion was based upon the files of the cause, the writ of prohibition which had been served upon the judge of the superior court, and a number of affidavits filed in the cause on the 17th of December, 1896. All but two of the affidavits filed on the motion for continuance had been originally filed on the 17th of December, at the time plaintiff objected to having the cause assigned for trial. In opposition to the motion for continuance, the defendant filed counter affidavits. The motion for continuance was overruled, and exceptions allowed by the court. A jury was called to try the cause. Objection was then made to the trial by Mr. Hart, attorney for plaintiff, who stated that he appeared specially, and objected that the court had no jurisdiction on the ground that it was in direct defiance of the writ of prohibition, and on the ground that the judge was disqualified by reason of bias and prejudice. The court stated that plaintiff had an opportunity to state his case to the jury, and Mr. Hart answered that plaintiff was not proceeding.
The court thereupon directed verdict to be rendered in favor of the defendant, which verdict was duly returned, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant in the action, and for the costs and disbursements accrued. Then the plaintiff caused a bill of exceptions to be settled on the 16th of February, 1897. This bill of exceptions embraced all the affidavits, the writ of prohibition, and counter affidavits previously filed in the cause, and before final judgment entered therein. Plaintiff, after said bill of exceptions was settled, filed, on the 13th day of February 1897, a motion to vacate the judgment entered on the 29th of December, 1896. This motion to vacate the judgment assigned a number of grounds: That the cause was improperly set for trial on the 17th of December; a reasonable time was not allowed for plaintiff to prepare for trial; surprise on the part of the plaintiff; the action of the court on the 23d of December in discharging the jury, and causing another jury to be drawn; because the action was taken pending the hearing of the writ of prohibition in the supreme court, and left plaintiff five days in which to prepare for trial, which was not a reasonably sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial