Schoonover v. Condon

Washington Supreme Court

Schoonover v. Condon

41 P. 195, 12 Wash. 475, 1895 Wash. LEXIS 193

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 30, 1895

DocketNo. 1709 and 1710

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 41 P. 195 (Schoonover v. Condon) 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

Schoonover v. Condon, 41 P. 195, 12 Wash. 475, 1895 Wash. LEXIS 193 (Wash. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court, was delivered by

Scott, J.

The respondent instituted this action to foreclose a chattel mortgage on a certain crop consisting of hay and potatoes, and joined Grady as one of the defendants on the ground that she had, or claimed to have, some interest in the property. Two appeals have been taken by her, which were heard .and submitted-at the same time. In the main action judgment was rendered in favor of the respondent, decreeing a foreclosure of the mortgage, and preliminary thereto a number of findings of fact were duly made by the court. Some of the findings are not questioned. Appellant excepted to the whole as follows: “To which findings and conclusions and each of them defendant Kittie Grady excepts.”

The only questions sought to be raised upon this appeal relate to the evidence, and respondent contends [476]*476that we cannot consider the same because no sufficient exceptions were taken to the findings. This objection is well taken and the judgment is affirméd.

The other appeal was from an interlocutory order restraining appellant from disposing of the property pending the litigation, and it is contended that the court had no authority to grant the same. We think, however, that the showing thereof was sufficient. . It was in substance that the defendant had already fed a large quantity of the hay to her cattle, and that the reniainder of the mortgaged property was not sufficient td'pay plaintiff's claim, and that if she continued to consume and dispose of the property the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury, etc.

It is a well settled proposition that pending proceedings to foreclose a mortgage the ■ court, upon a proper application by the plaintiff, has authority to restrain the destruction of the property. Otherwise the results of the litigation might become entirely lost to the plaintiff.

Affirmed.

Hoyt, 0. J., and Dunbar., Gordon and Anders, JJ., concur.

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

The opinion of the court, was delivered by

Scott, J.

The respondent instituted this action to foreclose a chattel mortgage on a certain crop consisting of hay and potatoes, and joined Grady as one of the defendants on the ground that she had, or claimed to have, some interest in the property. Two appeals have been taken by her, which were heard .and submitted-at the same time. In the main action judgment was rendered in favor of the respondent, decreeing a foreclosure of the mortgage, and preliminary thereto a number of findings of fact were duly made by the court. Some of the findings are not questioned. Appellant excepted to the whole as follows: “To which findings and conclusions and each of them defendant Kittie Grady excepts.”

The only questions sought to be raised upon this appeal relate to the evidence, and respondent contends [476]*476that we cannot consider the same because no sufficient exceptions were taken to the findings. This objection is well taken and the judgment is affirméd.

The other appeal was from an interlocutory order restraining appellant from disposing of the property pending the litigation, and it is contended that the court had no authority to grant the same. We think, however, that the showing thereof was sufficient. . It was in substance that the defendant had already fed a large quantity of the hay to her cattle, and that the reniainder of the mortgaged property was not sufficient td'pay plaintiff's claim, and that if she continued to consume and dispose of the property the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury, etc.

It is a well settled proposition that pending proceedings to foreclose a mortgage the ■ court, upon a proper application by the plaintiff, has authority to restrain the destruction of the property. Otherwise the results of the litigation might become entirely lost to the plaintiff.

Affirmed.

Hoyt, 0. J., and Dunbar., Gordon and Anders, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 P. 195, 12 Wash. 475, 1895 Wash. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schoonover-v-condon-wash-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack