Legal Opinion

State v. Hoyt

Washington Supreme Court

Decided August 12, 1892No. 584PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County.

1Opinion of the Court

Hoyt, J. —

It appears from the transcript in this case that no notice of the settlement of the statement of facts was given until *819after the expiration of thirty days from the date of judgment. The motion to strike the same for that reason, made by respondent, under numerous decisions of this court must be granted. See Enos v. Wilcox, 3 Wash. 44 (28 Pac. Rep. 364); Cadwell v First National Bank, 3 Wash. 188 (28 Pac. Rep. 365.)

The statement of facts having been stricken, the only question presented by the record is as to the alleged error committed by the court in sustaining a proceeding by…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lybarger v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Enos v. WilcoxWashington Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Cadwell v. First National BankWashington Supreme Court · 1891

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hallock v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1911
  2. State v. KavanaughNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1927
  3. State v. PicaniWashington Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Wells v. MaxwellOhio Supreme Court · 1963

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API