Kenyon v. Knipe
Washington Territory
Appeal from the District Court holding terms at Seattle. Third, District. Judgment in this cause was rendered January 21, 1886. On January 28th service was made of a notice to settle a statement of facts on the tenth day of February, but was not accompanied by a tender of the prepared statement as required by rule 38 of the District Court, nor was any statement presented for settlement at the time designated in the notice, nor at any time within thirty days, nor did the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court holding terms at Seattle. Third, District. Judgment in this cause was rendered January 21, 1886. On January 28th service was made of a notice to settle a statement of facts on the tenth day of February, but was not accompanied by a tender of the prepared statement as required by rule 38 of the District Court, nor was any statement presented for settlement at the time designated in the notice, nor at any time within thirty days, nor did the appellant take any steps within that period to settle the statement or to secure an extension of time for that purpose.…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hoyt
Appellee herein moves the court to strike the statement of facts from the record and affirm the judgment of the court' below. As this is a cause in equity, it follows, from opinions already filed at this term, that in the opinion of a majority of the court the motion to affirm must be granted, if the facts are stricken, and we. need therefore only consider the latter question. Notice to settle the facts was given within thirty days, but under such notice nothing was done, and therefore such notice was of no avail. After the expiration of the thirty days fixed by statute, the court made an…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Enos v. WilcoxWashington Supreme Court · 1891
- State Ex Rel. Northeast Transportation Co. v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1938
- Stenger v. RoederWashington Supreme Court · 1892