Benney v. Clein (1896)

Decided: November 20, 1896.

Facts and holding

Judgment creditors bought personal property at execution. Their improperly obtained garnishment judgment was later vacated. The Supreme Court reversed dismissal of the debtor’s replevin action: those creditor-purchasers could not claim the order’s protection for innocent purchasers. The damages issue remained for further proceedings. The decision does not hold every stranger-purchaser loses title whenever a judgment is vacated. Full opinion, unofficial OpenJurist reproduction.

Currentness and later treatment

The full primary text was read through the ordinary web reader; a separate direct 403 is not a retraction of that retrieval. The publisher’s automated good-law badge is not adopted. Earlier failed attempts to obtain the later-treatment candidate Singly v. Warren, 18 Wash. 434, 51 P. 1066 (1898), remain preserved. Its complete opinion was subsequently recovered/read through ordinary Hall web access. Singly expressly cites Benney for the execution-creditor distinction, but concerns land and a purchaser through the creditor who never received a sheriff’s deed. It denies that purchaser good-faith protection on the record; it is not a holding that every unrelated chattel purchaser loses title. Full Singly opinion, unofficial Hall reproduction.

Current RAP 12.8 separately protects good-faith purchasers after appellate reversal/modification; CR 60 governs judgment relief. Do not substitute the historical procedure for either rule. Complete later treatment remains needs_verification. RAP 12.8; CR 60.

Applies in →

washington · equipment-and-machinery

Legal information, not legal advice. Verify current law and subsequent treatment before relying on this historical decision.