State v. Superior Court for King County

• Decision Date: 09 August 1919
• Docket Number: 15395.
• Citation: 183 P. 74,108 Wash. 183
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. PIONEER MINING & DITCH CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR KING COUNTY et al.

183 P. 74

108 Wash. 183

STATE ex rel. PIONEER MINING & DITCH CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR KING COUNTY et al.

No. 15395.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 9, 1919

Department 1.

Proceedings by the State of Washington, on the relation of the Pioneer Mining & Ditch Company for writ of mandate against the Superior Court for King County, A. W. Frater, Judge. Writ issued.

Williamson Williamson & Freeman, of Tacoma, for appellant.

Edward H. Chavelle, of Seattle, for relator.

Ballinger Battle, Hulbert & Shorts, of Seattle, for garnishee.

Edward Judd and O. L. Willett, both of Seattle, for respondent.

TOLMAN, J.

Relator brought suit in the superior court for King county to recover from one J. M. Davidson a sum of money paid in satisfaction of certain indebtedness for which it was alleged Davidson was liable over by reason of certain guaranties made by him and others. At the time suit was commenced, a writ of garnishment was duly issued, directed to J. E. Chilberg, who answered admitting an indebtedness to Davidson of upwards of $15,000. Subsequent to the filing of the garnishee's answer and pursuant to supplemental proceedings had in another cause then pending in the same court, but heard in a different department, Chilberg was required to pay the money, which his answer admitted to be due, to the sheriff of King county, who supposedly is holding the fund awaiting the termination of the garnishment proceedings.

Relator's case against Davidson came on for trial with matters in this condition, and after a jury had been impaneled and sworn and plaintiff's evidence offered, the defendant Davidson interposed a motion for a nonsuit, which the trial court orally granted. Relator immediately and in open court applied to the trial judge for an order fixing the amount of a supersedeas and stay bond for the purpose of retaining in status quo the money sequestered by the garnishment proceedings, pending an appeal to this court from the judgment of nonsuit. The trial judge having declined to fix any supersedeas bond, application is now made to this court for a writ of mandate requiring him to do so.

A garnishment proceeding can be commenced only when an original attachment has been issued, when plaintiff sues for a debt and makes the required affidavit and gives bond, or when plaintiff has a judgment wholly or partially unsatisfied. Rem. Code, §§ 680, 681. So that a garnishment proceeding is in no sense an original or independent action but is ancillary to the original cause from and through which its existence comes. Kelly v. Ryan, 8 Wash. 536, 36 P. 478.

And with the dismissal or termination of the original action in favor of the defendant therein, the garnishment proceeding must immediately die. The statute recognizes this fact by the proviso in section 693, Rem. Code, to the effect that, if judgment be rendered in favor of the original defendant, the garnishee shall not be required to...