City of Seattle v. Baxter
This text of 55 P. 320 (City of Seattle v. Baxter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This appeal presents but two questions for determination. The first relates to a ruling of the court which permitted the defendant to file an amended answer. The granting or refusing to grant an amendment rests in the sound discretion of the court (Barnes v. Packwood, 10 Wash. 50, 38 Pac. 857), and we do not think that its discretion was abused in the present case.
The second question is whether a wife is a necessary party to an action brought to foreclose an assessment lien. The affirma[715]*715tive of this question is too well settled in this state to admit of present discussion. Littell & Smythe Mnfg. Co. v. Miller, 3 Wash. 480 (28 Pac. 1035); Sagmeister v. Foss, 4 Wash. 320 (30 Pac. 80, 744); Parke v. Seattle, 8 Wash. 78 (35 Pac. 594); Brotton v. Langert, 1 Wash. 73 (23 Pac. 688).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
55 P. 320, 20 Wash. 714, 1898 Wash. LEXIS 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-seattle-v-baxter-wash-1898.