In re City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 06 November 1905
• Citation: 40 Wash. 450,82 P. 740
• Parties: In re CITY OF SEATTLE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

82 P. 740

40 Wash. 450

In re CITY OF SEATTLE.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 6, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Geo. E. Morris, Judge.

In the matter of the petition of the city of Seattle. From an order confirming an assessment roll, various parties appealed. Dismissed.

Harold Preston, for appellants.

John K Brown, for respondent.

RUDKIN J.

One hundred and three parties, owning separate and distinct parcels of land, gave notice of appeal to this court from an order confirming an assessment roll in the court below. Some of the appellants gave, or attempted to give, bonds to render their appeals effectual, others did not. Before any further steps were taken or expenses incurred in the prosecution of the appeals, the appellants filed in the court below and served on the respondent a notice that they and each of them abandoned their respective appeals. After the filing and service of such notice of abandonment the respondent filed a short record in this court, accompanied by 103 motions to dismiss, and now contends that it is entitled to costs, including a $25 statutory attorney fee, against each appellant, or attorney fees aggregating $2,575 in all.

The motion to dismiss is not resisted, but the appellants contend that the respondent is not entitled to recover costs at all by reason of their abandonment of their appeals, and that in no event is the respondent entitled to more than one bill of costs, including one statutory attorney fee, against all the appellants. We are of opinion that the respondent is entitled to the order of dismissal and to its statutory costs. This court acquires jurisdiction of an appeal by the giving of notice and the filing of a proper bond, and that jurisdiction cannot be defeated by any act of the parties. An appellant cannot dismiss an appeal as a matter of right. Agassiz v Kelleher, 9 Wash. 656, 38 P. 221; Allen v Catlin, 9 Wash. 603, 38 P. 79; Post v. Spokane, 28 Wash. 701, 69 P. 371, 1104. The abandonment could only operate as an estoppel against the further prosecution of the appeals, and the court might permit the parties to prosecute their appeals notwithstanding the abandonment, if it were made to appear that the abandonment was filed and served through inadvertence or mistake. A respondent has a right to have an appeal finally disposed of in this court, and that can only be done by the court itself. Section 6519 Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St., providing that no withdrawal or dismissal of an appeal which does not go to the substance of, or the right of, appeal, shall preclude a party from taking another appeal within the time limited by law, only authorizes a party to withdraw an appeal for the purpose of taking a further appeal within the time limited by law. It does not...