TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Wilson

The State of Washington v. Frank Wilson

State v. Wilson, 35 P. 377 (Wash. 1893)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Washington Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 28, 1893
Docket
No. 1134
Judges
Stiles
Citations
35 P. 3777 Wash. 5021893 Wash. LEXIS 195
Headnotes
APPEAL — FAILURE TO FILE TRANSCRIPT — EXCUSABLE DELAY. Where an appellant’s failure to file his transcript and briefs within the time required by statute is due to a misunderstanding between his attorney and the clerk of the superior court, and the appellant has at all times been endeavoring iu good faith to prosecute his appeal, and the transcript has been Hied and his brief served prior to the hearing upon a motion to dismiss his appeal, the motion will be denied. (Hoyt, J., dissents.)
Summary
Appeal from Superior Court, King County. Opinion on motion to dismiss appeal.

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

Opinion of the Court — Stiles

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by Stiles, J.

The state moves to dismiss the appeal in this case because of appellant’s neglect and failure to file his transcript and briefs within the time required by the statute.

Prom the affidavits on file and the fact that the appellant, in response to the motion, has already caused the transcript to be filed in this court and his brief to be served and filed, it appears that, although there has been considerable delay in complying with the law in regard to filing transcript and briefs, appellant has at all times been endeavoring in good faith to prosecute an appeal from the judgment against him, and that the delay has probably arisen more from a misunderstanding between his attorney and the clerk of the superior court than from any other reason.

The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied.

Dunbar, O. J., and Anders and Scott, JJ., concur.

Hoyt, J., dissents.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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