State v. Supreme Court of Spokane County

• Decision Date: 07 November 1893
• Parties: STATE EX REL. WOLFERMAN v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SPOKANE COUNTY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

34 P. 930

7 Wash. 234

STATE EX REL. WOLFERMAN v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SPOKANE COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 7, 1893

Prohibition on relation of Laura Wolferman, administratrix, to the superior court of Spokane county, against the reopening of a judgment entered in the case of relatrix against Bell and others, decided by this court. 32 P. 1017. Writ granted.

Feighan Wells & Herman, for petitioner.

Turner Graves & McKinstry, for respondent.

SCOTT J.

This is an application for a writ of prohibition to restrain said court from entertaining or proceeding with a petition to modify a judgment and decree theretofore rendered in an action brought by Laura Wolferman, as administratrix, etc against Harry C. Bell, Belle Bell, et al. Said action was brought in said court to foreclose a certain mortgage, and a decree was rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants therein, whereupon the defendants appealed said cause to this court, and judgment was here rendered affirming the decree of the lower court. 6 Wash. ---, 32 P. 1017. Subsequently, said Harry C. Bell and Belle Bell filed a petition in said superior court praying that they be allowed to introduce and set up in said action a release of a part of said mortgaged lands upon which said decree operated, and a payment of $300 therefor, which they failed to introduce at the trial of said action, and which failure is sought to be excused in said petition, and further prayed that the decree, as rendered by said superior court in said cause, and affirmed by this court, be modified by said superior court to the extent that they be allowed a credit of the $300 aforesaid, and that the lands so released be exempted from sale under said decree. A demurrer was filed thereto by the relator, which was overruled, and this application was made to us to prohibit said court from proceeding in said matter.

It is urged in behalf of the respondent that an appeal does not divest the superior court of jurisdiction of a case, and that it has authority thereafter to entertain proceedings for the purpose of amending or modifying the judgment or decree rendered; and some authorities have been cited where amendments have been permitted in the lower court while an appeal has been pending in the upper court, and also after it has been disposed of. Rew v. Barker, 14 Amer. Dec 516, authorities cited in note. But an examination of these authorities shows that...