Smith v. Stiles
Citations
- 68 Wash. 345
- 123 P. 448
- 1912 Wash. LEXIS 1291
Syllabus
<p>Appeal — Decisions Reviewable — Finality of Orders — Refusing to Vacate Judgment. The denial of a motion to vacate a default judgment for want of jurisdiction, in that the application must be by petition and service of original process, is final and appealable and conclusive on the parties, if not appealed from; and the same is true of the denial of a petition to vacate because service had been made upon the attorney for the plaintiff in the action.</p> <p>Same — Sustaining Demurrer to Petition. An order sustaining demurrers to a petition to vacate a default judgment because not commenced within the time limited by law, is appealable as a final order.</p> <p>Judgments — Defaults—Actions to Recover Real Property — Vacation — Limitation. An action to forfeit a land contract and remove the cloud upon the title, the complaint alleging that the defendants were nonresidents and not seeking any award of possession, is not an action to recover the possession of land, within Rem. & Bal. Code, § 806, authorizing the vacation of default judgments in actions to recover the possession of real property at any time within two years after judgment where the service was by publication; and a petition to vacate is therefore barred after one year, under the provisions of Id., §§ 235, 464, 466, providing for the vacation of judgments in other cases within one year.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Interlocutory Orders on Appeal from Pinal Order — Independent Proceedings' — Vacation of Judgment. Where, under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 466, a motion in the original action to vacate a default judgment on service by publication was made within one year, and denied for want of jurisdiction in that the proceeding must be by petition and original process, and a petition, called an amended petition, was filed under Rem. & Bal. Code, §§ 467 and 468, and dismissed because served only on plaintiff’s attorney, whereupon another amended petition was served and filed and demurrers thereto sustained because not se
Judges: Ellis
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Winton Motor Carriage Co. v. BlombergWashington Supreme Court· 1915-03-19· cited 15×
- Wendler v. WoodardWashington Supreme Court· 1916-12-26· cited 13×
- Foster v. FosterWashington Supreme Court· 1924-07-16· cited 3×
- Mitchell v. City of BridgeportOhio Court of Appeals· 1917-12-11· cited 3×
- Lawrence v. RawsonWashington Supreme Court· 1923-08-27
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.