Green v. Nichols, 31991
| Decision Date | 19 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 31991,31991 |
| Citation | 245 P.2d 468,40 Wn.2d 661 |
| Parties | GREEN et al. v. NICHOLS et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Deane W. Parker, Seattle, for appellants.
Cadwell F. Corrigan, Seattle, Stedman & Stedman, Seattle, co-counsel, for respondents.
This is an action to recover the possession of personal property, or the value thereof, and damages for the detention, brought pursuant to RCW 4.56.080, Rem.Rev.Stat. § 434. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint and thereafter entered judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.
It is alleged in the complaint that Mrs. Eugene F. Werelius, one of the plaintiffs, was admitted to defendant Providence Hospital, in Seattle, for the purpose of being delivered of a child; that, at the request of her doctor, a radiologist employed by the hospital took certain X-ray pictures of Mrs. Werelius and her child; that the hospital rendered a bill for these pictures in the sum of twenty-six dollars, which bill was paid in full; that Mrs. Werelius and her husband were and now are the owners and entitled to possession of the X-ray pictures; that they and the other named plaintiffs, as their agents, have demanded possession of such pictures, but that defendants have refused to deliver possession thereof to plaintiffs; and that the unlawful withholding and retaining of the X-ray pictures has damaged plaintiffs in the sum of two hundred dollars.
The prayer of the complaint is for possession of the X-ray pictures, or for the sum of twenty-six dollars, 'the value thereof,' together with two hundred dollars damages and costs of suit.
We are obliged to dismiss the appeal on our own motion, for the reason that this is an action at law for the recoery of personal property and the value of the property does not exceed the sum of two hundred dollars.
The applicable provision of the State constitution reads as follows:
'The supreme court shall have * * * appellate jurisdiction in all actions and proceedings, excepting that its appellate jurisdiction shall not extend to civil actions at law for the recovery of money or personal property when the original amount in controversy or the value of the property does not exceed the sum of two hundred dollars ($200), unless the action involves the legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, municipal fine, or the validity of a statute.' Art. IV, § 4, Washington State Constitution. (Emphasis supplied.)
This is an action for the recovery...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Bremerton v. Spears
...when the lack of jurisdiction is apparent because the amount claimed does not reach the statutory amount of $200. Green v. Nichols, 40 Wash.2d 661, 663, 245 P.2d 468 (1952). The Washington Appellate Practice Deskbook The Court of Appeals statutory lower limit, RCW 2.06.030, does not have th......
-
Kerr v. King County
...State Constitution; Dygert v. Hansen, 31 Wash.2d 858, 199 P.2d 596; Baker v. Oliver, 37 Wash.2d 862, 226 P.2d 567; Green v. Nichols, 40 Wash.2d 661, 245 P.2d 468. GRADY, C. J., and HAMLEY, DONWORTH, and FINLEY, JJ., ...
-
Bishop v. Hamlet
...the 'original amount in controversy' is less than two hundred dollars. This the court should do of its own motion. Green v. Nichols, 40 Wash.2d 661, 245 P.2d 468. 1 '* * * By the great weight of authority the power of the courts to dismiss a case because of a failure to prosecute with due d......
-
Nielson v. King County, 39072
...the amount in controversy is less than two hundred dollars, Dygert v. Hansen, 31 Wash.2d 858, 199 P.2d 596 (1948), Green v. Nichols, 40 Wash.2d 661, 245 P.2d 468 (1952), and such an appeal will be dismissed on our own motion. Kerr v. King County, 42 Wash.2d 845, 259 P.2d 398 (1953).We have ......