TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Adams v. Columbia Canal Co.

H. C. Adams v. The Columbia Canal Company

Adams v. Columbia Canal Co., 98 P. 741 (Wash. 1908)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Washington Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 26, 1908
Docket
No. 7596
Judges
Rudkin
Citations
98 P. 74151 Wash. 2971908 Wash. LEXIS 1018
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Appeal — Record—Statement of Facts — Necessity of Certificate. A statement of facts not certified by tbe trial judge, but simply authenticated by the affidavit of the stenographer who reported the case, will be struck out on motion. Same — Statement of Facts — Necessity. In the absence of a bill of exceptions or statement of facts, the supreme court cannot review error in the admission of testimony, or the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict. Appeal — Review—Harmless Error — Ruling on Pleadings. Error in overruling a demurrer to an answer will be regarded as harmless, where no findings were made and the evidence is not brought up, and the trial court may have found the allegations of thg complaint untrue.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Walla Walla county, Brents, J., entered June 13, 1908, in favor of the defendant, dismissing an action for an injunction, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury.

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

Opinion of the Court — Rudkin

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

Rudkin, J.

— Respondent has moved to strike the statement of facts in this case, because not certified by the trial judge as provided by law. The statement of facts is simply authenticated by the affidavit of the stenographer who reported the case at the trial, and the motion to strike must be granted.

The assignments of error are: (1) That the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the further and affirmative defense contained in the answer; (&) that the court erred in admitting testimony in support of the affirmative defense; and (3) insufficiency of the evidence to justify the judgment. The second and third assignments cannot be considered in the absence of a statement of facts or bill of exceptions, and there is nothing in the record to show that the overruling of the demurrer was prejudicial, if erroneous. All the material allegations of the complaint were denied by the answer, and the court made no finding of facts or conclusions of law. For aught that appears of record, the court may have found that the allegations of the complaint were untrue, and error will never be presumed. Without passing upon the sufficiency of the answer, the judgment must therefore be affirmed; and it is so ordered.

Hadley, C. J., Fullerton, Crow, Mount, and Dunbar, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1919: 119192026peak 1919 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lamb-Davis Lumber Co. v. Stowell181 P. 520 (Wash. 1919)

Most recent

  1. Lamb-Davis Lumber Co. v. Stowell181 P. 520 (Wash. 1919)

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