Sullivan v. Porter

• Decision Date: 03 January 1917
• Docket Number: 13626.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: SULLIVAN v. PORTER et ux.

161 P. 1186

94 Wash. 187

SULLIVAN v. PORTER et ux.

No. 13626.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 3, 1917

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; M. L. Clifford Judge.

Action to quiet title by C. F. Sullivan against Charles Porter and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Englehart & Rigg, of North Yakima, and Fletcher & Evans, of Tacoma, for appellants.

Guy E Kelly and Thomas MacMahon, both of Tacoma, for respondent.

MOUNT J.

This action was brought by the respondent to quiet his title to certain lands in Pierce county, and to remove a cloud therefrom. The complaint alleged that the respondent was the owner of the property, and that the defendants were asserting a claim therein adverse to the plaintiff, and that the defendants had no right, title, or interest in the premises, or any part thereof.

For answer to the complaint, the defendants denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the property, and, as an affirmative defense, alleged that on the 15th day of February, 1915, the defendants procured a judgment against the Tweedy Trust Company, a corporation in Yakima county, in the sum of $4,557.33, together with interest and costs; that thereafter, on the 18th day of March, 1915, the defendants filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court of Pierce county an abstract of the judgment in that case; that at that time, the Tweedy Trust Company was the owner of the lands in question; that, by reason of filing the said abstract, the defendants acquired a first and prior lien upon the real estate; that thereafter, with intent to defraud these defendants and render their judgment and lien valueless, the plaintiff in this action brought a suit against the Tweedy Trust Company to declare a trust, alleging therein that the plaintiff was the owner of the property that the Tweedy Trust Company, in collusion with the said plaintiff, confessed judgment, and permitted judgment to be taken against the said Tweedy Trust Company, in order to establish said trust, and that the same was done without notice to these defendants, and for the sole purpose of defeating the right of lien of the defendants; that the defendants had no knowledge or information that the plaintiff claimed any interest in the lands in controversy in this action. The defendants prayed to have the lien of the judgment of $4,557.33 declared a first lien upon the property. For reply the plaintiff admitted the filing of the abstract in Pierce county, and denied all of the other allegations in the affirmative defense.

Upon these issues the case came on for trial to the court without a jury. The plaintiff introduced in evidence an abstract of title showing that the property was deeded on May 5, 1906, by one Rice, who was then the owner of the property, to the Tweedy Trust Company. Plaintiff then introduced in evidence, over the objection of the appellants a certified copy of the judgment rendered in the case of ...