TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wollin v. Smith

N. F. Wollin v. Lyman C. Smith

Wollin v. Smith, 67 P. 561 (Wash. 1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Washington Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 27, 1902
Docket
No. 4158
Citations
67 P. 56127 Wash. 3491902 Wash. LEXIS 398
Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL-STATEMENT OF FACTS-TIME OF FILING EXTENSION. Where a statement of facts was not filed within the thirty days required by statute, it should be stricken upon respondent’s motion therefor, even though an extension of time had been granted by the trial court, when it appears that the order was made without notice to the adverse party and in the absence of a stipulation for an extension of time.
Summary
Appeal from Superior Court, King County. — Hon. William Tt. Bell, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

Motion to strike statement of facts. Judgment was entered in this cause on October 22, 1901. At that date the time began to run in which the appeal might be taken, and the statement of facts was required to be filed before or within thirty days therefrom. The last day upon which the statement could have been filed or served, without an extension of time by the trial court, was November 21, 1901. Martin v. Sunset Telephone & Tel. Co., 18 Wash. 260 ( 51 Pac. 376 ). It was not filed or served until November 22, 1901. It is true that an order was made by the trial court extending the time, but this order was not made by stipulation, and no notice was given to the defendant or his counsel of any application for an extension. This brings the case squarely within the rule announced in McQuesten v. Morrill, 12 Wash. 335 ( 41 Pac. 56 ). There being no controversy other than that raised by the statement of facts, the appeal will be dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1902: 11903: 21904: 21910: 11913: 11920: 119022026peak 1903 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Martin v. Nichols188 P. 519 (Wash. 1920)
  2. State v. Yandell75 P. 988 (Wash. 1904)
  3. Dodds v. Gregson77 P. 791 (Wash. 1904)
  4. Michaelson v. Overmeyer137 P. 332 (Wash. 1913)
  5. State ex rel. Dutch Miller Mining & Smelting Co. v. Superior Court70 P. 102 (Wash. 1902)
  6. Russell v. Mitchell112 P. 250 (Wash. 1910)

Most recent

  1. Martin v. Nichols188 P. 519 (Wash. 1920)
  2. Michaelson v. Overmeyer137 P. 332 (Wash. 1913)
  3. Russell v. Mitchell112 P. 250 (Wash. 1910)
  4. Dodds v. Gregson77 P. 791 (Wash. 1904)
  5. State v. Yandell75 P. 988 (Wash. 1904)
  6. Jones v. Herrick74 P. 332 (Wash. 1903)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
McQuesten v. Morrill, 41 P. 56 (Wash. 1895) 10
Martin v. Sunset Tel. & Tel. Co., 51 P. 376 (Wash. 1897) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list