Hawks v. Votaw
Washington Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Pierce County. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. This proceeding is in no way warranted by law, or by the statutes of Washington Territory. The only way the judgment could be corrected, as insisted by the appellee, is by a petition filed as in other eases. Code Wash.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Pierce County. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. This proceeding is in no way warranted by law, or by the statutes of Washington Territory. The only way the judgment could be corrected, as insisted by the appellee, is by a petition filed as in other eases. Code Wash. T., §§436-9; Freeman on Judgments, §§ 69-75; Lewiston v. Swan, 33 Cal. 480. The $40 as attorney’s fee having been improperly and inadvertently included in the judgment, a motion to strife© it out, followed by a distinct order striking it out, is the proper mode of procedure. Freeman on…
1Opinion of the Court
*71The opinión of the court was delivered by
Scott, J.
In April, 1887, plaintiff brought suit upon a promissory note against the defendants, Votawas maker, and Cook as guarantor. Cook appeared in the action, and filed a written consent that judgment might be taken against him for the amount found due, and judgment was rendered against him thereon, March 2, 1887, for the amount of the principal, interest and costs, and an attorney’s fee of $40. The note provided for a reasonable attorney’s fee. Defendant Yotaw resisted the suit, and judgment was rendered against him June 30, 1887, at the trial, for…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Smith's Adm'r v. Charlton's Adm'rSupreme Court of Virginia · 1851
- Morrison v. MorrisonWashington Supreme Court · 1901
- Chism's Administrator v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
- Davis' Adm'rs v. MeadSupreme Court of Virginia · 1856
- Fred v. DixonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1876
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.