Watterson v. Masterson

• Decision Date: 14 November 1896
• Citation: 46 P. 1041,15 Wash. 511
• Parties: WATTERSON ET AL. v. MASTERSON ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

46 P. 1041

15 Wash. 511

WATTERSON ET AL. v. MASTERSON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 14, 1896

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; W. H. Pritchard, Judge.

Action by Thomas Watterson and others against C. P. Masterson and others, impleaded with the Bank of Puyallup and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

Arthur Remington and John P. Judson (Remington &amp Reynolds, of counsel), for appellants.

John A Shank and Walter M. Harvey (Herbert S. Griggs, of counsel) for respondents.

HOYT, C.J.

A portion of the defendants in this action gave notice of appeal, but did not serve it upon all who had appeared in the action. Thereafter the defendants not served with notice themselves gave notice, and served it upon all necessary parties. Respondents moved to dismiss both appeals,-the first for the reason that the required parties had not been served and the second because it was taken while the first was pending and undisposed of. It was clearly the right of the defendants not served with notice of the first appeal to give notice in their own behalf. Hence, their appeal was regularly taken; and, this being so, those who attempted the first appeal could abandon it, and join in the second one. By their doing so the duplication of papers was prevented, and the whole matter of the prosecution of the appeal simplified, and at the same time every object which the requirements of the statute had in view was fully accomplished. The motion to dismiss must be denied.

The Bank of Puyallup had failed, and a receiver of its assets had been duly appointed by the superior court of Pierce county. Thereafter this action was brought by a creditor of the bank against its stockholders to recover, in his own interest and that of all other creditors, the contingent liability of the stockholders, under the provisions of the constitution of this state. The receiver was made a party to the action. Other creditors intervened, and the action resulted in a judgment against the stockholders, respectively, for their share of the liability growing out of the claims of all the creditors which were established in the action. From this judgment this appeal has been prosecuted.

The principal questions involved in this case were decided in Wilson v. Book (Wash.) 43 P. 939, and it is conceded that, under the rule therein announced, the judgment cannot stand; but respondents earnestly contend that the decision in that case was against the great weight of authority, and ask...