Urquhart v. Coss

• Decision Date: 24 September 1910
• Citation: 60 Wash. 249,110 P. 1001
• Parties: URQUHART v. COSS, Sheriff, et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

110 P. 1001

60 Wash. 249

URQUHART v. COSS, Sheriff, et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 24, 1910

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Adams County; O. R. Holcomb Judge.

Action by C. H. Stever against J. W. Johnson, in which property claimed by William Urquhart was attached as the property of defendant. From a judgment in favor of claimant, plaintiff and the sheriff appeal. Affirmed.

Zent &amp Cannon, for appellants.

R. S Hamilton and Lovell & Davis, for respondent.

CROW J.

On October 22, 1909, C. H. Stever commenced an action in the superior court of Adams county against J. W. Johnson to recover debts claimed to be due, and caused an attachment to be issued therein and levied on certain personalty as the property of the defendant. Thereafter William Urquhart, as claimant, filed an affidavit in which he alleged that he was entitled to the possession of the property, and that he was the owner thereof at the time of, and prior to, the attachment. The trial court made findings in his favor, awarded him the property, and the sheriff, A. J Coss, and C. H. Stever, have appealed.

The trial court in substance found the following facts, which we conclude are sustained by the evidence: That on February 25, 1908, J. W. Johnson mortgaged to William Urquhart the personal property in controversy; that the mortgage, although signed, was not acknowledged; that no affidavit of good faith was attached thereto; that from November 5, 1908, to March 5, 1909, Johnson incurred certain unsecured personal obligations to the appellant Henry Stever and his assignors, for the recovery of which Stever instituted action and caused the writ of attachment to be issued, which on October 25, 1909, was levied on the property in controversy; that prior to October 21, 1909, J. W. Johnson had transferred all of his rights in the property to Urquhart in satisfaction of his debt; that on October 21, 1909, Urquhart had taken possession under his mortgage and under the absolute transfer by Johnson; and that the mortgage had been filed with the auditor of Adams county on February 25, 1908, and properly indexed.

The appellants contend that the trial court erred in admitting the mortgage in evidence. It was offered by respondent to disclose the transaction between himself and Johnson and show a valid consideration for the surrender and release of the property to respondent prior to appellant's attachment. It was the original mortgage, produced by the county auditor from his official files, and a certified copy has since been substituted in the record. Appellants' objections to its admission were interposed in the following language 'Defendants object on the ground that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and for the further reason that the same is an original, if anything, and this court cannot extract one of the files from the auditor's office for any purpose whatsoever, and for the further reason that the same is not properly identified and is not binding upon the defendants, and is void, absolutely void, on its face.' Their principal contention at this time is that the execution of the mortgage was not shown, nor was Johnson's signature proven. The respondent had theretofore testified without objection to the execution of such a mortgage by Johnson. Appellants' objection that the signature was not proven is made for the first time in this court. When objections are not sufficiently definite to call the attention of the trial court to the particular grounds upon which they are based, error cannot be predicated thereon. One purpose of introducing the original mortgage was to show that it had been filed in the auditor's office; it being produced by him. Had a special objection that it...