TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Templeman v. Evans

James A. Templeman v. Fred T. Evans, Jr.

Templeman v. Evans, 77 P. 381 (Wash. 1904)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Washington Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 2, 1904
Docket
No. 4968
Judges
Mount
Citations
77 P. 38135 Wash. 3021904 Wash. LEXIS 449
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Appeal — Statement op Facts — Affidavits Identified in Certificate — How Brought Up. Upon an appeal from an order ■made after a hearing upon affidavits, a statement of facts will not he struck out for the reason that it failed to incorporate -therein the affidavits, where, after amendments were proposed -to the statement, the court certified, upon notice, that the matter was heard upon the affidavits, which were specifically referred -to and attached to the record, and that they constituted all the ■evidence before the court.
Summary
Appeal from an order of the superior court for King •county, Tallman, J., entered August 1, 1903, discharging .an attachment, after a hearing upon affidavits.

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

Opinion of the Court — Mount

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

Mount, J.

This appeal is from an order of the lower court discharging an attachment upon real estate. Respondent moves to strike the statement of facts and dismiss the appeal, for the reason that the evidence consists of affidavits which were not incorporated in any statement of facts or hill of exceptions. A hill of exceptions, however, was filed and served upon respondent’s attorney, who thereupon filed certain amendments thereto. Thereafter, upon *303 notice, the court certified that the motion to discharge the attachment was heard upon affidavits, which affidavits were specifically referred to and attached to the record; and also certified that the said affidavits constituted all the evidence before the court upon the hearing of the said motion, on the part of both plaintiff and defendant. We think this was sufficient under the statute, and the motion to strike and dismiss is therefore denied.

On the merits of the case the question is one entirely of fact. It is sufficient to say that the affidavits are somewhat conflicting, but, upon a careful reading thereof, we think the appellant has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant was attempting to dispose of his property in order to defraud his creditors, as alleged in the application for the writ.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

Fullerton, C. J., and Hadley, Dunbar, and Anders, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1913: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. International Development Co. v. Sanger135 P. 28 (Wash. 1913)

Most recent

  1. International Development Co. v. Sanger135 P. 28 (Wash. 1913)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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