Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Northwestern Theatrical Ass'n
| Decision Date | 13 December 1900 |
| Citation | 23 Wash. 517,63 P. 212 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | TITLE GUARANTEE & TRUST CO. v. NORTHWESTERN THEATRICAL ASS'N (SEATTLE THEATER CO., Garnishee. |
Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; Thomas Carroll, Judge.
Action by the Title Guarantee & Trust Company against the Northwestern Theatrical Association (Seattle Theater Company garnishee). From a judgment against the garnishee, it appeals. Affirmed.
H. S. Griggs, R. C. Strudwick, and W. A. Peters for appellant.
W. O Chapman, for Title Guarantee & Trust Co., plaintiff.
T. L Stiles and J. M. Ashton, for Northwestern Theatrical Ass'n, respondent.
Plaintiff commenced an action in King county against defendant, and in such action filed an affidavit for a writ of garnishment, and the garnishee (appellant) was summoned to answer. The defendant appeared and demurred to the complaint, and demanded that the place of trial be changed to Pierce county, whereupon a charge of venue for the trial of the action to Pierce county was granted, and the cause was afterwards tried in that county. Thereupon the garnishee (appellant) objected to the jurisdiction of the court to try the controversy involved in the garnishment in Pierce county, because of the residence of the garnishee (appellant) in King county. The merits of the controversy involved the indebtedness of the garnishee (appellant) to the defendant under a written contract with the defendant, a theatrical association, which was an undertaking on the part of the association to furnish the garnishee (appellant), a theater company, with attractions in theatrical exhibitions in Seattle.
There are substantially two questions presented on appeal. The first is the jurisdiction of the superior court of Pierce county to determine the garnishment proceeding. The garnishment issue was auxiliary and ancillary to the main action, and a part of such action. Under section 22 of the statute relative to garnishments (Laws 1893, p. 95), it is declared that, if the answer of the garnishee is controverted, it shall be tried as other cases: provided however, no pleadings shall be necessary on such issue, other than the affidavit of the plaintiff and the answer of the garnishee, and the reply controverting such answer. We do not think that section 4855, 2 Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St., relates to garnishments. It is applicable to original or independent actions. See Sherwood v. Stevenson, 25 Conn. 437; Railway Co....
To continue reading
Request your trial