In re Ault

• Decision Date: 23 October 1896
• Citation: 46 P. 644,15 Wash. 417
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: IN RE AULT. APPEAL OF INTERSTATE SAVINGS & LOAN ASS'N.

46 P. 644

15 Wash. 417

IN RE AULT. APPEAL OF INTERSTATE SAVINGS & LOAN ASS'N.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 23, 1896

Appeal from superior court, Snohomish county; John C. Denney, Judge.

Application by the Interstate Savings & Loan Association for the disbarment of John B. Ault. From a dismissal of its petition the applicant appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Shank &amp Smith, for appellant.

Coleman & Hart, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

An application was filed in the superior court of Snohomish county by the Interstate Savings & Loan Association alleging many delinquencies on the part of the respondent, John B Ault, and praying the court for an order citing said John B Ault to appear and show cause, if any he had, why he should not be forthwith disbarred, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys of said court. Respondent demurred to the petition upon the grounds (1) that the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the respondent in this proceeding; (2) that it had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the proceeding; (3) that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and (4) that the proceeding was not being prosecuted upon the court's own motion. This demurrer was sustained by the court, and judgment of dismissal entered, from which judgment an appeal is taken to this court. The respondent now moves the court to dismiss this appeal for the reason that this court has no jurisdiction of an appeal from the order from which this appeal is taken, that the notice of appeal was not served or filed within the time limited by law, and that the appellant has no appealable interest in the subject-matter of this appeal, and is not entitled to prosecute it. Without noticing the first two alleged grounds for dismissal, we think the last one, namely, that the appellant has no appealable interest in the subject-matter of this appeal, must be sustained. The record does not disclose the ground upon which the court sustained the demurrer. It was indicated by the appellant, in oral argument, that it was because the lower court did not think it had jurisdiction to try the cause, and it is insisted that if the appeal is dismissed the effect would be to assume the very thing in controversy. However that may be, an appeal is a statutory right, and, if not given by the statute, cannot be entertained by this court. The statute provides that a party who is aggrieved may prosecute...