Sewell v. Sewell
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentSimpson, J.
(dissenting)—The opinion in this case announces a rule entirely at variance with all of our decisions relative to appellate procedure. In the first place, the majority opinion, as I understand it, means to hold that this court does not have jurisdiction relative to the custody of children pending an appeal in a divorce case. However, the opinion states:
“The respondent has the right to have the custody of the child as provided in the court’s interlocutory order pending the appeal, and a defense on the merits will not lie to an appropriate procedure to enforce the order.”
How can this court…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Pike v. PikeWashington Supreme Court · 1946
- Ætna Insurance v. ThompsonWashington Supreme Court · 1904
- Irving v. IrvingWashington Supreme Court · 1901
- Masterson v. OgdenWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- Holcomb v. HolcombWashington Supreme Court · 1908
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.