Case Name: WASHINGTON COUNTY ABSTRACT COMPANY v. STEWART, Judge
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1903-12-30
Citations: 9 Idaho 376
Docket Number: 
Parties: WASHINGTON COUNTY ABSTRACT COMPANY v. STEWART, Judge.
Judges: Stockslager and Ailshie, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 376–381

Head Matter:
(December 30, 1903.)
WASHINGTON COUNTY ABSTRACT COMPANY v. STEWART, Judge.
[74 Pac. 955.]
Writ of Review — Party to Action.
1. To entitle one to a writ of review he must have been a party to the suit or matter in controversy.
(Syllabus by the court.)
ORIGINAL application for writ of review denied.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Lot L. Feltham, for Plaintiff,
upon a petition for a rehearing, cites the following authorities:
1., That the judgment of the district court complained of by-plaintiff, is void for want of jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff. “The court cannot act upon persons who are not. legally before it, upon one who is not a party to the suit, upon a plaintiff who has not invoked its arbitrament, or upon a defendant who has never ieen notified, upon a subject which does not fall,, within the province as defined or limited by law* Neither-.can, it go beyond the issues and pass upon a- matter, which the parties neither submitted nor intended to submit for its determination.” (1 Black on Judgment, 1891 ed., p. 261, sec. 215, p. 262, see. 216, p. 267, secs. 219, 220, p. 328, see. 270, also p. 347, sec. 278, and cases cited in notes 186-189; Ford v. Doyle, 37 Cal. 346; McCoy v. Allen, 16 W. Ya. 731; Shinn v. Board of Education, 39 W. Ya. 506, 20 S. E. 604; Freeman on Void Judicial Sales, pp. 8-12, secs. 3, 5.) All who are neither parties to a judgment nor privies to such parties are not bound by such judgment. (Stocker v. Kirtley, 6 Idaho, 795, 892; Horner v. Doe, 1 Smith (Ind.), 10; Frankel v. Satterfield, 9 Boust. (Del.) 201, 19 Atl. 898.) “A judgment is absolutely void if it appear that there was a want of jurisdiction in the court rendering it either of the subject matter or of the person of the defendant.....It may be collaterally attacked upon the ground that the court by which it was rendered had. no jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or of the person of the defendant, or both.” {Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391, 94 Am Dec. 742.) Certiorari is the proper and legal means of reviewing and canceling a void judgment. {Orr v. State Board of Equalization, 3 Idaho, 190, 28 Pac. 416; Harris on Certiorari, pp. 37, 44, 45, secs. 44, 49, note 2, citing authorities; Keys v. Marion County, 42 Cal. 252; Centred Pac. B. Co. v. Placer County, 46 Cal. 670; People v. San Francisco F. D. Delegates, 14 Cal. 479; People v. Dwinelle, 29 Cal. 632; People v. Burney, 29 Cal. 459; Winter v. Fitzpatrick, 35 Cal. 269; Morley v. Elkins, 37 Cal. 454; People v. Elkins, A0 Cal. 642.) “It is proper to reverse a void judgment by certiorari.” {Matter of Bracket, 27 Hun (N. Y.), 605; 4 Ency. of PI. & Pr., p. 49, note 2; People ex rel. Whitney v. Board of Delegates etc., 14 Cal. 479; Lowe v. Alexander, 15 Cal.'301; Henshaw v. Board of Supervisors of Butte Go., 19 Cal. 150 ; Morley v. Elkins, 37 Cal. 454; Central Pac. B. B. Co. v. Placer Co., 46 Cal. 670; In re Stuttmeister, 71 Cal. 322, 12 Pac. 271; Schwartz v. Superior Court, 111 Cal. 106, 43 Pac. 580 ', -City of Los Angeles v. Young, 118 Cal. 295, 62 Am. St. Hep. 234, 50 Pac.. 535; Madison v. Piper, 6 Idaho,; 137, 53 Pac. 395 \. Adleman v. Pierce-, 6 .Idaho, 294, 55 Pac,. 658; Nuckolds v. Lyle, & Idaho,- 589, 70. Pac. 401; Sweeny et al. v. Mayhew', 6 Idaho, 455, 56 Pac. 85; Ah Pong v: McCalla et al., 7 Idaho, 20, 59 Pac. 930; M'cNamee v. Steele/ 8 Idaho, 539, 69 Pac. 319; Goodelv. Steele, 8 Idaho, 538, -69' Pae. 319.) There is no other plain/ speedy and adequate-' remedy by'appeal, writ of error,', or’ mandamus. (Gañz v-Steele, 7 Idaho, 143, 61 Pac. 287; Porter v. Steele, 7 Idaho, - 414, 63 Pac. 187; Bust et al. v. Stewart, 7 Idaho, 558, 64'Pae.' 223; NordyTee & Mormon Co. v. McConlcey■; 7 Idaho, :562/ 64; Pac. 893.) Injunction is not a plain, speedy and adequate-remedy, and does not lie to restrain a void judgment. (Cali-" fornia P. B. Co., v. Central Pac. B. Co., 47 Cal. 528; Sanchez v. Carria-ga, 31 Cal. 170; State v. Napton, 24 Mont. 450, 62 Pae. 686; 21 Eney. of PÍ. & Pr. 451, 452, and notes; Lewis -v.: Bishop et al., 19 Wash. 312, 53 Pac. 166.)
George P. Ehea, for Defendant,
files no brief.

Opinion:
SULLIVAN, C. J.
This is an original application for a writ of review to the judge of the district court of the third judicial district of the state of Idaho, in and for Washington county. The facts of the case axe substantially as follows: The said abstract company is a corporation doing a general abstract-' business in the said county of Washington; that in the year 1903,-the assessor and tax collector of said coiinty assessed, for gen-' eral taxation purposes, the abstract-books belonging to said cómj)any at the valuation of $1,000; that thereafter andón or about' the eighteenth day of July, 1903, ¿aid abstract company,' by its officers and stockholders, filed its application with the board of county commissioners of said county) which was then sitting ás a hoard of equalization, to reduce and' strike said assessment from the tax-roll of said county, for the reason that said abstract-books composed' a private library and that as such- they were exempt from taxation under the laws of this state; thereafter said board sitting as a board of equalization ordered said assessment stricken-from the assessment-roll for said year, and further ordered that the capital stock of said abstract company be assessed to the individual stockholders at the sum of $1,000; thereafter, said stockholders, through the president of said cor poration, made application to strike the assessment of said capital stock from the assessment-roll of ,said: county on certain grounds not necessary to state here, which application was denied by the board. Thereafter an appeal -was taken from said order to the district court by the stockholders of Said corporation, and upon a trial in the district court it was held that said orders of the board of county commissioners sitting as a board of equalization be set: aside and held .for naught, and that the original- assessment of said abstract-books of said Washington County Abstract 'Company be reinstated as the assessment against said company. •
(January 12, 1904.)
Upon that state of facts said Washington County Abstract Company through its proper officer made the application for a writ of review. In said application and affidavit the said affiant "alleges that it [the. said abstract company] was not, and is hot, a party to said action in which said judgment was so rendéred against it."
It is thus shown that said abstract company, at least in the opinion of the affiant, was not a party to the appeal from the order of said board. If that be true, which we concede for the purposes of this ease, under the well-established rule in the Gold Hunter Mining and Smelting Co. v. Holleman, 3 Idaho, 99, 27 Pac. 413, the application for the writ must be denied. In that case it was held that to entitle a petitioner to a writ of review, he must be a party to the suit of controversy. In Starkweather v. Seeley, 45 Barb. 164, it was held that a person hot a party to a summary proceeding could not sue out a writ of certiorari to review the proceedings. Said abstract company not having been a party to the proceedings before the district court, on the authority of said cited eases the writ must be denied, and it is so ordered. Costs' are awarded to'.defendants.'
Stockslager and Ailshie, JJ., concur.