Damon v. Leque

44 P. 261, 14 Wash. 253, 1896 Wash. LEXIS 350
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 11, 1896
DocketNo. 2047
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 44 P. 261 (Damon v. Leque) 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.

Bluebook
Damon v. Leque, 44 P. 261, 14 Wash. 253, 1896 Wash. LEXIS 350 (Wash. 1896).

Opinion

[254]*254The opinion of the court was delivered by

Scott, J.

Judgment went against the plaintiffs in this action on a demurrer interposed by the defendants to their complaint, on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The action purported to be one to remove a cloud from title. The complaint alleged, however, that one Iverson and wife, who were then the owners of the land in controversy, executed to the plaintiffs a mortgage thereon to secure the payment of $950 and alleged the foreclosure of such mortgage and a sale of the land thereunder to the plaintiffs; that after the giving of the mortgage, and prior to the institution of said foreclosure suit, said land was levied upon and sold under an execution issued on an ordinary money judgment against the Iversons, and a sheriff’s deed was issued in pursuance thereof, under which the defendants claim, and which was of record at the time said foreclosure action was commenced.

The defendants were not made parties to the foreclosure suit, and, of course, their rights were not concluded in that action; but we are of the opinion that the complaint states facts sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to a foreclosure of said mortgage as against the defendants, and for that reason the court committed error in sustaining the general demurrer thereto. If a plaintiff sets forth facts constituting a cause of action and entitling him to some relief, he is not to be turned out of court because he has misconceived the nature of his remedial right. Pomeroy, Code Remedies, §71.

. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Dunbar and Anders, JJ., concur. Hoyt, C. J., dissents. GordoN, J., took no part.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Prichard v. Conway
234 P.2d 872 (Washington Supreme Court, 1951)
Dale v. Cohn
127 P.2d 412 (Washington Supreme Court, 1942)
McDonald v. Pend Oreille Mines & Metals Co.
65 P.2d 1250 (Washington Supreme Court, 1937)
State ex rel. Forstell v. Otis
230 P. 414 (Washington Supreme Court, 1924)
Titlow v. MacPhail
240 F. 8 (Ninth Circuit, 1917)
State v. Superior Court
131 P. 482 (Washington Supreme Court, 1913)
Brown v. Calloway
75 P. 630 (Washington Supreme Court, 1904)
Yarwood v. Johnson
70 P. 123 (Washington Supreme Court, 1902)
Dormitzer v. German Savings & Loan Society
62 P. 862 (Washington Supreme Court, 1900)
Watson v. Glover
59 P. 516 (Washington Supreme Court, 1899)
Damon v. Leque
50 P. 485 (Washington Supreme Court, 1897)
Knapp v. King County
50 P. 480 (Washington Supreme Court, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 P. 261, 14 Wash. 253, 1896 Wash. LEXIS 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/damon-v-leque-wash-1896.