Pierce v. Commercial Investment Co.
F. V. Pierce v. Commercial Investment Company
Syllabus
Summary
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.
— This is an action for revival of a judgment. On motion of defendants, the cause was dismissed by the lower court. When the plaintiff made his motion and petition for revival of the judgment, the court required him to give a cost bond, on the ground that plaintiff had removed from the state of Washington subsequently to the obtaining of the judgment, and the judgment from which this appeal was taken was rendered against the plaintiff and the sureties on said bond. The respondents move to dismiss the appeal, for the reason, among others, that no notice of appeal was given to or served upon the sureties on said bond. This motion will have to be sustained, under the rule announced in Cline v. Mitchell, 1 Wash. 24 ( 23 Pac. 1013 ), Carstens v. Gustin, 18 Wash. 90 ( 50 Pac. 933 ), and State ex rel. Billings v. Port Townsend, 27 Wash. 728 ( 67 Pac. 1135 ). This being a jurisdictional question, it is not necessary to discuss the other grounds alleged in the motion.
The appeal is dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.