Case Name: City of Seattle, Appellant, v. D. K. Baxter, Respondent
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1898-12-16
Citations: 20 Wash. 714
Docket Number: No. 3044
Parties: City of Seattle, Appellant, v. D. K. Baxter, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 714–715

Head Matter:
[No. 3044.
Decided December 16, 1898.]
City of Seattle, Appellant, v. D. K. Baxter, Respondent.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County.—Hon. William Hickman Moore, Judge.
Affirmed.
Pratt & Riddle (W. E. Humphrey, of counsel), for appellant.
Harrison Bostwick (John E. Humphries, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
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 tive 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.