State v. Superior Court of Washington In and For Spokane County

• Decision Date: 31 October 1923
• Docket Number: 18166.
• Citation: 220 P. 5,127 Wash. 37
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WATERMAN v. SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY.

220 P. 5

127 Wash. 37

STATE ex rel. WATERMAN v. SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY.

No. 18166.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 31, 1923

Department 1.

Original proceeding for writ of prohibition by the State of Washington, on the relation of Ida A. Waterman, against the Superior Court of Washington in and for the county of Spokane, with R. M. Webster as Judge thereof.Permanent writ issued.

C. L Shuff, of Seattle, and Roy A. Redfield, of Spokane, for relator.

Allen Winston & Allen and Robertson, Miller & Robertson, all of Spokane, for respondent.

TOLMAN J.

This is an original proceeding in this court by which relator seeks the issuance of a permanent writ of prohibition restraining respondent from further proceeding in a matter growing out of the case of Robertson v. Waterman(Wash.)212 P 1074.In that casethis court directed the entry of a judgment for nominal damages, and, on the going down of the remittiturthe superior court, on April 25, 1923, entered its final judgment in and by which it was provided:

'That the tenancy of plaintiffs herein of and to the properties described in the complaint herein, under the lease described in said complaint and said lease, is hereby forfeited and the said plaintiffsFrederick C. Robertson and Marie T. Robertson, his wife, do have and recover from Ida A Waterman, defendant herein, the sum of $1, together with their costs,' etc.

After the entry of this judgment Frederick C. Robertson and others filed a petition in the superior court setting up the terms of the lease referred to in the judgment; the interests of the petitioning parties therein; the commencement of an action of unlawful entry and detainer against the petitioners; the issuance of a writ of restitution, and the ousting of petitioners from possession and the final termination of that action in this court( Waterman v. Robertson,103 Wash. 553, 175 P. 177) in their favor; the subsequent commencement of an action for damages on account of such eviction; the steps taken in that proceeding resulting in the action recorded in 212 P. 1074; the entry of the judgment in the superior court from which we have quoted; the willingness of the petitioners to accept the provisions of the lease and resume possession; and the claim of right so to do under section 830, Rem.Comp. Stat.Upon the filing of the petition on order was entered requiring the relator, who was made respondent therein, to appear and show cause why the petition should not be granted.Relator made a special appearance and motion to quash upon the ground that the superior court had no jurisdiction to proceed therein.The motion to quash being denied, relator procured the issuance of an alternative writ in this court requiring respondent to refrain from further proceeding in the matter until the further order of this court, and directing respondents to show cause on the return day why a permanent writ of prohibition should not issue.

Respondents appeared here by a motion to quash and dismiss on the ground of no notice to them of the application.This motion must be denied. ...