Agassiz v. Kelleher

Citation11 Wash. 88,39 P. 228
PartiesAGASSIZ v. KELLEHER.
Decision Date07 February 1895
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington

Appeal from superior court, King county; R. Osborn, Judge.

Action by Richard Agassiz against Daniel Kelleher. Judgment was rendered for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Appeal dismissed.

M. L. Baer, for appellant.

Bausman, Kelleher & Emory, for respondent.

SCOTT, J.

A former appeal was taken in this case, which was dismissed, upon the appellant's motion, for the purpose of allowing him to move for a correction of the judgment entry in the lower court, and taking another appeal therefrom. 9 Wash. 656, 38 P. 221. A default judgment had been entered against the appellant, on which the first appeal was taken. After said appeal was dismissed, this judgment was set aside, and a judgment of dismissal was entered upon the order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, the plaintiff having elected to stand thereon, and this appeal was taken from the judgment as corrected. The respondent again moves to dismiss, one of the grounds being that the appeal was not taken in time. It is conceded to have been taken more than six months after the entry of the original judgment. The present judgment was the one that should have been entered at that time, and it ought not to be given the effect of a new judgment to extend the time for taking an appeal. We are of the opinion that this appeal was taken too late, and the motion to dismiss is granted. The costs upon the former dismissal, having been withheld pending the time within which a second appeal could be taken, will be included herein.

HOYT, C.J., and DUNBAR, ANDERS, and GORDON, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • McDonald v. Mulkey
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1922
    ...Loan Society v. Horton, 63 Cal. 310; Joyce v. Dickey, 104 Ind. 183, 3 N.E. 252; Burbank v. Rivers, 20 Nev. 159, 18 P. 753; Agassiz v. Kelleher, 11 Wash. 88, 39 P. 228; Leadbetter v. Laird, 45 Wis. 522; Schulze v. R. & N. Co., 41 Wash. 614, 84 P. 587; Gardner v. P. & E. Ry. Co., 121 P. 6; Co......
  • In re Big Bend Drainage District Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Big Bend Drainage District
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • August 29, 1922
    ... ... (N. Y.) 233, 67 N.Y. 40; Cotes v ... Smith, 29 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 326, 31 How. Pr. 146; ... Townsend v. Townsend, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 281; Agassiz ... v. Kelleher, 11 Wash. 88, 39 P. 228.) ... The ... statute regulating drainage proceedings precludes the ... exercising of such power ... ...
  • Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Brown
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1930
    ...Chenoweth v. Chenoweth, 64 Ind. App. 260, 114 N. E. 988; Besser v. Alpena Circuit Judge, 155 Mich. 631, 119 N. W. 902; Agassiz v. Kelleher, 11 Wash. 88, 39 P. 228. We have no decision in point. Appellants rely on Mann v. Haley, 45 Cal. 63; Hayes v. Land & Water Co., 136 Cal. 238, 68 P. 704;......
  • Zimmern v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 16, 1936
    ...3 C.J. 1047; Alabama Coal & Navigation Co. v. State, 54 Ala. 36; Savings & Loan Society v. Horton, 63 Cal. 310; Agassiz v. Kelleher, 11 Wash. 88, 39 P. 228; Crowell v. United States (D.C.) 281 F. 835. If, however, the amendment is in a particular changing the character of the decree, the ti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT