Elterich v. Arndt, 24684.
| Citation | 175 Wash. 562,27 P.2d 1102 |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1933 |
| Docket Number | 24684. |
| Parties | ELTERICH et al. v. ARNDT et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Clallam County; Clay Allen, Judge.
Action by Ed Elterich and others, relators, against Walter A. Baar as Treasurer of Clallam County, J. L. Keeler, Albert Draper and Ben Arndt, as members of the Board of County Commissioners, and others. From a temporary restraining order, Ben Arndt, one of the county commissioners, appeals as a member of the Board of County Commissioners and as an individual.
Appeal dismissed.
Joseph H. Johnston and Wm. J. Conniff, both of Port Angeles, for appellant.
Trumbull Severyns & Trumbull, of Port Angeles, for respondents.
In an action instituted on the relation of five taxpayers of Clallam county for injunctive relief against 'Clallam County, a municipal corporation; Walter A. Baar, as Treasurer of Clallam County, the Board of County Commissioners of Clallam County, consisting of J. L. Keeler, Albert G. Draper and Ben Arndt; First National Bank in Port Angeles, a corporation; and Basil Hoke, sole trader doing business as the Olympic Builders Supply Company, and J. J Swift,' the relators were awarded a temporary restraining order enjoining Walter A. Baar, as the treasurer of Clallam county, from calling or paying certain warrants drawn against the general road and bridge fund of Clallam county; and 'the defendants J. L. Keeler, Albert G. Draper and Ben Arndt, as the Board of County Commissioners of Clallam County be, and you are hereby, restrained and enjoined from letting any contract for the construction of any bridge,' etc.
Ben Arndt, 'as a member of the Board of County Commissioners of Clallam County, Washington, and as an individual, feeling himself aggrieved,' has appealed from the temporary restraining order.
Respondents have interposed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant has no appealable interest and is not an aggrieved party in the cause. The motion must be granted.
The record fails to disclose that as an individual the appellant has a substantial interest in the subject-matter of the litigation or that as an individual he was aggrieved or prejudiced by the temporary restraining order. A person can have no standing to appeal unless he has a substantial interest in the subject-matter of the litigation and is aggrieved or prejudiced by the judgment or decree.
'And not only must a party desiring to appeal have an interest in the particular question litigated, but his interest must be immediate and pecuniary, and not a remote consequence of the judgment. * * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bergstrom
..."appeals are permissible ‘to correct errors injuriously affecting the appellant.’ " Majority at 843 n.10 (quoting Elterich v. Arndt , 175 Wash. 562, 564, 27 P.2d 1102 (1933) ). The majority reasons that the State was aggrieved in this case (on the issues on which it sought review) and the S......
-
Randy Reynolds & Assocs., Inc. v. Harmon
...annoyance, discomfort, or even expense by a decree, does not entitle [that party] to appeal from it.’ " Elterich v. Arndt, 175 Wash. 562, 564, 27 P.2d 1102 (1933) (quoting 2 RULING CASE LAW Necessity That Appellant Be Prejudiced § 34, at 53 (1914)).¶ 14 Reynolds contends that it was aggriev......
-
In re Franz' Estate
... ... Swan v. Piquet, 3 Pic. 443; Sherer v ... Sherer, 93 Me. 210, 44 A. 899; Elterich v ... Arndt, 27 P.2d 1102; Briard v. Goodale, 86 Me ... 100, 29 A. 946. Under the above ... ...
-
Smuck v. Hobson
...v. Preston, 280 U.S. 406, 50 S.Ct. 171, 74 L.Ed. 514 (1930). 4 Hobson v. Hansen, 44 F.R.D. 18, 33 (D.D.C.1968). 5 See Elterich v. Arndt, 175 Wash. 562, 27 P.2d 1102 (1933); State ex rel. Erb v. Sweaas, 98 Minn. 17, 107 N.W. 404 6 Rule 24(a) (2) and (3), 28 U.S.C.A. (1958). 7 44 F.R.D. at 22......