State v. Superior Court of King County

• Decision Date: 07 July 1894
• Citation: 37 P. 489,9 Wash. 369
• Parties: STATE EX REL. EGBERT ET AL. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF KING COUNTY ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

37 P. 489

9 Wash. 369

STATE EX REL. EGBERT ET AL. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF KING COUNTY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 7, 1894

Petition for certiorari by the state of Washington, on the relation of Curtis Egbert and others, against the superior court of King county and T. J. Humes, Judge. Granted.

Dunbar C.J., dissenting.

T. A Gamble, for relator.

I. E Moses, for respondents.

HOYT J.

A complaint was filed in a justice's court against one of the relators to recover, on a contract for the payment of money only, the sum of $91, and interest thereon from such a date that the principal and interest amounted to the sum of $109, in which sum judgment was prayed. Upon default of defendant, judgment in that amount was rendered against him. From such judgment he took an appeal to the superior court and the other relators joined with him, as sureties in the bond given upon such appeal. The superior court, having dismissed the appeal, made an order affirming the judgment of the justice's court, and rendered a judgment in the superior court against the principal and sureties in the appeal bond for the amount thereof, with costs, and is now proceeding to enforce the collection of said judgment against said principal and sureties. Relators have filed their petition in this court setting out these, among other facts, and praying a writ of certiorari to be directed to said superior court, and to Thomas J. Humes, the judge in whose department the proceedings were had, to the end that the record may be certified here, and the action of the court reviewed. Such writ will not be awarded if the superior court was proceeding within its jurisdiction, and the question whether or not these facts show that such court had not jurisdiction is the one which we are called upon the consider upon this application. It is claimed on the part of the relators that said court had not jurisdiction, for two principal reasons: First, that the justice's court had no jurisdiction, and for that reason the superior court could get no jurisdiction on appeal; and, second, that, if the superior court did get jurisdiction of the subject-matter upon appeal, it had no jurisdiction to render a judgment upon the bond without having first brought the sureties before it on proper notice.

As to the first contention, the rule is well settled that if the court from which an appeal is taken had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and for that reason its judgment was absolutely void, the appellate court, by virtue of the appeal, can get no jurisdiction to do more than to reverse the judgment or dismiss the appeal. This rule is so well established that it is not necessary to cite authorities or make argument in support thereof. Did the justice's court have jurisdiction of the subject-matter upon the complaint filed, which was the foundation of the judgment from which the appeal was taken? This question must be decided upon the construction to be placed upon such complaint. It is claimed upon the part of the relators that the cause of action stated in the complaint arose upon a contract for the recovery of money only, and that the sum claimed was more than $100. On the other side, it is contended that since the principal sum was less than $100, and it was brought above that amount only by the claim for interest thereon, for the purposes of the statute giving jurisdiction to justices' courts the sum claimed was less than $100. 2 Hill's Code § 23. It is not contended but that if the sum claimed was for more than $100, within the meaning of such statute, the justice's court got no jurisdiction of the subject-matter by reason of the filing of such complaint. In our opinion, the claim for interest due upon the principal sum is as much a part of the sum claimed as is the principal itself. The interest, while not technically a part of the contract, is so connected with it that, when the claim is made therefor in a...