Laux v. Woodworth

• Decision Date: 29 July 1938
• Docket Number: 27109.
• Citation: 195 Wash. 550,81 P.2d 531
• Parties: LAUX v. WOODWORTH et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

81 P.2d 531

195 Wash. 550

LAUX v. WOODWORTH et al.

No. 27109.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 29, 1938

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Robert M. Jones, Judge.

Two actions by Leah Cowen Laux against George S. Woodworth and another to recover for the named defendant's failure, as plaintiff's attorney, to file a statement of facts for an appeal within the time limited by law. Judgment for plaintiff for $144.79 on one cause, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

H. E Foster, of Seattle, for appellant.

Ballinger Hutson & Boldt, of Seattle, for respondents.

MAIN Justice.

In the complaint in this case there are two causes of action separately stated. A demurrer was interposed to each, and was overruled as to the first and sustained as to the second. The trial was to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact from which it was concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to recover on the first cause of action. From the judgment entered in her favor in the sum of $144.79, and interest, she appeals.

No statement of facts or bill of exceptions has been brought to this court. The case is here upon the findings alone. These will be briefly summarized.

George Woodworth is an attorney at law, and will be referred to as though he were the only party respondent. On or about September 16, 1935, the appellant had pending in the superior court of King county an action which had gone to final judgment, and her then attorney had perfected an appeal to this court. After the appeal had been thus perfected, the respondent was employed to appear for and on behalf of the appellant. She caused duplicate copies of the statement of facts to be prepared and delivered to the respondent. She also paid him one hundred dollars for services and advanced the costs for the clerk's transcript and the printing of the brief. The respondent did not file the statement of facts within the time limited by law, and it was subsequently stricken on motion made in this court. He gives as a reason for not filing the statement in time that it contained 'matters of obscenity and vulgarity,' and that, in his opinion, the statement of facts would not have aided the appellant upon that appeal.

By the appellant's first cause of action, she seeks to recover from the respondent the moneys advanced, and other expenses for which she had obligated herself, which were incidental to the appeal. By the second cause of action, she seeks to recover the sum of five thousand dollars as general damages.

It is apparent that the reason given by the respondent for not...