Caton v. Switzler

NATHAN D. CATON and FREDERICK STANFORD, Partners, etc. v. JOHN B. SWITZLER

Caton v. Switzler, 13 P. 712 (Wash. Terr. 1887)

Court: Washington Territory · State Specialty Courts
Decided: January 5, 1887
Judges: Greene
Citations: 13 P. 7123 Wash. Terr. 2421887 Wash. Terr. LEXIS 29

Cited by 4

Headnotes

Appeal — Statement of Facts — Transcript — Notice.—Where, in the transcript, that which purports to be the statement of facts provided for by the Washington Territory appeal act of 1883 does not appear to have been made up with the knowledge of, and has been made without notice to, the appellee, it is not a statement within the appeal act, since that requires notice.

Summary

Appeal from the District Court holding terms at Walla Walla. First District. Suit in equity appealed to this court under the appeal act of 1883. Appellee moved to affirm the judgment on the grounds that no statement of facts on appeal had been settled or allowed, and that the evidence in the action had not been certified and required by law and the rules of the court. The statement of facts appearing in the record was signed without any notice to the appellee.

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

Opinion of the Court — Greene

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

Mr. Chief Justice Greene

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an equity cause decided upon the merits in the lower court, and brought up here under the appeal act of 1883.

What purports to be a statement of facts is included in the transcript, but it is not such a statement as is contemplated and prescribed by that act, for it does not appear to have been made up with the knowledge of, and it is conceded to have been made without notice to, the appellee. Such being the posture of the case, the motion to affirm the judgment of the District Court is granted.

Hoyt, J., and Turner, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

State ex rel. Northeast Transportation Co. v. Superior Court77 P.2d 1012 (Wash. 1938)
Hammell v. Superior Court17 P.2d 101 (Cal. 1932)
Frost v. Mighetto71 P.2d 932 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)
Stenger v. Roeder29 P. 211 (Wash. 1892)

Most recent

State ex rel. Northeast Transportation Co. v. Superior Court77 P.2d 1012 (Wash. 1938)
Frost v. Mighetto71 P.2d 932 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)
Hammell v. Superior Court17 P.2d 101 (Cal. 1932)
Stenger v. Roeder29 P. 211 (Wash. 1892)

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.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list