In re Clerf

Citations

• 55 Wash. 465
• 104 P. 622
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 784

Syllabus

<p>Mandamus — Remedy by Appeal — To Control Actions ok Court— Discretion. Mandamus will not lie to compel a court to render a decision in a cause where, after trial and submission, the court found that other parties were necessary to a complete determination of the case, and ordered them brought in; since the court is exercising its discretion and not refusing to proceed with the cause; and the remedy for error, if any, is by appeal from the final judgment.</p> <p>Same — Refusing to Proceed With Cause — Estoppel. A plaintiff who misleads the court as to her course, after being ordered to bring in new parties, delaying many months without action, is not in a position to complain of the dilatoriness of the trial judge, where he proceeded with reasonable diligence as soon as plaintiff’s refusal to bring in new parties was made known.</p> <p>Dismissal and Nonsuit — Necessary Parties — Refusing to Bring In — Rights of Interveners. An action to determine the right to the waters of a stream cannot be dismissed on plaintiff’s refusal to bring in new parties, after other parties had by leave of court intervened and ashed affirmative relief.</p> <p>Parties — New Parties. The right of the court to order necessary parties to be brought in is inherent, and is conferred by Bal. Code, §4840.</p>