title:
Barton L. Baker and Lizzie Baker v. James M. Prewett, Appeal from the First Judicial District Walla Walla County, Statement
creator:
James M. Prewett
contributor:
J. H. Lasater
contributor:
A. E. Isham
date:
1888-01-01
publisher:
Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington
type:
Civil
subject:
Real Property
language:
eng
format:
application/pdf
description:
3 Wash. Terr. 474 - Prior History: Plaintiff filed his complaint in the District Court against Barton L. Baker and Lizzie Baker, and thereupon a summons was issued wherein the cause and general nature of the action was stated as follows: "This action is brought to recover the sum of $ 1,500 in gold coin, and interest thereon from the 27th day of September, 1883, and for his costs and disbursements." The sheriff served defendant Lizzie Baker personally on March 26, 1887, in the county where action was pending. Defendant Baker never was served. Defendant Lizzie Baker failed to appear, and on April 16, 1887, plaintiff filed motion for default and judgment, and on April 19, 1887, judgment was rendered at chambers in favor of plaintiff for the amount demanded, and it was ordered that execution issue against the joint property of both defendants and against the separate property of defendant Lizzie Baker. Both defendants appealed from the judgment to the Supreme Court. A motion was then made by defendant in error to dismiss the appeal, for the reason, among others, that an appeal from a judgment at law could not be taken under the appeal act of 1883, and that no judgment by default, or for want of an answer, could be appealed from, and that the appeal act of 1883 was void for want of a sufficient title stating the object of the act.Appeal act of 1883 - Actions at law - Actions at law, as well as equitable actions, may be brought to the Supreme Court under the appeal act of 1883Appeal act of 1883 - Title to Statute - Sufficiency of - The title of the act of the legislative assembly of this territory, approved November 23, 1883, entitle "An act in relation to the removal of causes to the Supreme Court" while not technically accurate, expresses the object of the act sufficiently to render the act valid.Appeal - Judgment - Default - Under the statutes of this territory an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a judgment rendered by default in the District Court.3 Wash. Terr. 595 - Prior History: The complaint alleged, in substance, the execution of a deed by the defendants to the plaintiff, containing a covenant of warranty against all incumbrances upon the property conveyed, and the existence of a valid mortgage upon the property at the time of the conveyances, which was afterwards foreclosed and the property was sold to satisfy the same, and the plaintiff's title, under the deed, was divested by the sale; and that defendants had failed to satisfy this incumbrance, and had refused, after demand made, to defend against the foreclosure suit, all of which they had covenanted to do under the deed. The prayer in the complaint was for judgment for $ 1500, being the purchase price paid by the plaintiff to defendants, with legal interest from time of payment, and costs. The summons, issued after the filing of the complaint, contained no statement of the cause and general nature of the action, and was personally served upon one of the defendants, and a judgment of default for want of answer or appearance was rendered by the court without the intervention of a jury, and without any waiver of trial by jury, for the amount prayed for. From this judgment the defendants appealed. Default - Waiver of objections - Summons - Where a defendant personally served with summons suffers judgment by default, his objections, made for the first time in the Supreme Court, that the summons does not state the general nature of the action, will not be considered.Damages, Assessment of - Waiver of Trial by Jury - Sections 204 and 289 requiring the intervention of a jury, it must be called, unless expressly waived; and, where damages are assessed by the court, the judgment will be reversed and remanded solely for the purpose of having a jury assess the damages, though ovjection was made for the first time in the Supreme Court.
relation:
Baker v. Prewett, 3 Wash. Terr. 474 (1888)
relation:
Baker v. Prewett, 3 Wash. Terr. 595 (1888)
relation:
19 P. 149
rights:
These materials are public records. Please see Washington State Court Rules: General Rules 31 for details https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_31_00_00.pdf