The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-05-06
sEEvIcE MUST BIZ HAD.

oo0e CoaFt Sets Aside . roreoles-
ere After Many Years.
~ suprsms court has handed down its
tGico In the case Of McEachern against
NaIism Bracket and others. which has
~ psnding for four years. 1t Il signed
II Justics Stiiss. Judges Dunbar and An
- soscurring, but Hoys and Scott dis
6nsing:
Appellant In 1883 bought from Respond
Ut Bsscksts parcel of land in King
Nassy, ct the price Of $3.50, Of which eum
- vas paid by note secured BY mortgage,
~ the balance In cash. The note and
moeteAge were Transferred twice. 90 that
Hmpondent Brautigam was the holder
1s6sof In August, 1884. and Respondents
Kinney and Lesry were indorser for value
- accommodation indorser, respectively.
~ the date last mentioned. which was
~ the maturity Of the note, Brautigam
ummenced foreciosurs action, making
0pollant and the other respondents above
1omed defendants. All Of the defend an l.
= that action except the appellant here
~ served with the summons personally.
- sheriff returned that appellant could
~ p found In his (King) county, and no
nF@hsr attempt to make service upou him
- attempted. After reference . decree
III toreclosurs was entered, and In cue
.sss the property was sold by the sheriff
= DFsutigam for $500. which left dsii-
(saey Of STA 50, which Phinpsy and
lazy paid. After receiving his deed
sutsls. . r conveyed the property 70 Re
Appellant In November. 1890 brought
1is seton TO set aside the decree of fore
amnre and avoid the subsequent convey.
oncos, on the ground that ne never had
Euy knowledge OF the foreclosure pro-
eDdtnGs, or Of any of the steps taken in
eessqusncs thereof. and that the fling of
- demurrer by attorneys assuming TO
spssesnt the defendants was without his
noMisdgs or authority. The compliant
ua0e tender OF . sum OF money In pay
mt Of the mortgage debt, which sum
vs. deposited with the clerk, and the
qDcisncy Of the amount whereof IL not
4lacksd. The court below found all the
- 20 30 substantially - alleged in the
nnplaint.
The two matters found to constitute
ehes were the non-payment Of taxes and
- non-payment Of tho note, although
~ appellant possesssd the ability to pay
~ resided In neiGhboring county. Bur
1ellhsr Of these matters seem to US sufti-
emt TO justify . refusal to set aside q
bdgment entered without Jurisdiction,
yh1fs the party against whom the judy
INT Was entered had no notice either OF
- tudgmsnt. or that sny one was claim.
~ his land.
There 10 no rule Of law which requires q
uorsgagor in arrears 70 keep watch of the
purt records to see whether . judgment
- been entered up against him without
~ knowledge
Fasting this point We come next to the
naan question discussed by counsel, viz,
- effect OF judgment rendered against
party not served with process but in
vhose behalf an unauthorized attorney APP
Dnu or pleads. Appellant claims that
eeeh Judgment In voidable whom directly
olncked, az in this case, while respond
mh maintain that IL In invulnsrable. the
l3ty's remedy being an action for dam.
- against the attorney unless he ID
Down TO be insolvsnt; or that 10 must
md ~ against an innocent third party
hat there can be no relief unless good
Nqense Is shown in connection with the
tpplication for relief
4 judgment OF this kind II void in fact
ethough the appearance of an attorney Is
seumed to DO authorized. 30 that the face
ne record shows no defect other than
- want OF actual service. aud il viii be
~ aside as nuility, although innocent
9afd parties may suffer, when the appiica
Won Tor relief is made promptly upon dis
0vefy OF the existence of tho judgment,
ID upon clear and convincing proof thai
ns attorney did not have authority to ap-