Opinion ID: 1409777
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: McLennan litigation in Whatcom county.

Text: In August of 1941 Mr. Funkhouser went to Bellingham and made an investigation, at the request of appellant company, because its check in payment of taxes on its mining properties in Whatcom county had been returned by the county treasurer with the statement that the taxes had already been paid by Margaret C. McLennan. In September of 1941, M.C. McLennan, as owner and assignee of certain defaulted bonds issued by the New Light Gold Mining Company (from which corporation a major portion of the property to be developed and operated by the appellant had been leased), commenced an action to recover a judgment for $21,500 on the bonds so held by her, and to enforce the same against the property covered by a mortgage given to secure payment of the bonds. In a letter of October 8, 1941, Mr. Twohy stated that a thorough search of the authorities had been made, particularly with reference to the right of McLennan to sue in her individual capacity, and that a brief had been written. He urged that the demurrer be seriously argued. Mr. Twohy went to Bellingham and argued the demurrer, and it was sustained. Plaintiff McLennan appealed to this court. Mr. Twohy expressed the opinion in a letter written in April, 1942, that this appeal was prematurely taken and that the case will be dismissed without going into the merits. However, he recommended that a brief on the merits be prepared, for, as he sagely suggested, you never can tell what a court will do. The brief was prepared, but it is not in evidence, so there is no way (except by going outside the record) to determine the difficulties inherent in the legal problems presented or the amount of research required in its preparation. Of one thing we are reasonably certain, and that is that it was not an extensive brief, as the printing cost was only $35.33. Mr. Twohy argued the case in this court in May of 1942. Mr. Funkhouser testified in the present case that the appeal was subsequently dismissed. In the fall of 1942, M.C. McLennan made a procedural move of some sort in an effort to get a new complaint filed, and Mr. Twohy went to Bellingham a second time, and again argued a demurrer. In December of 1942 he wrote a letter in which he stated that he had received a letter from the judge at Bellingham in which he sustains our demurrer, and added, You understand the legal effect of that is to knock out the plaintiff's case. This litigation involved two trips to Bellingham by Mr. Twohy to argue demurrers and one trip to Olympia to argue the appeal on its merits and his motion to dismiss. Mr. Funkhouser made an exploratory trip to Bellingham in August, 1941, and again in November, 1944, to obtain entry of an order of dismissal for want of prosecution. It is true, as urged by respondents, that had McLennan prevailed in her action the appellant would have lost its most valuable properties; but the seriousness of the threat is not apparent, and it seems to have been fairly easily disposed of.