Neis v. Pool
| Decision Date | 27 August 1928 |
| Docket Number | 21141. |
| Citation | 269 P. 801,148 Wash. 646 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | NEIS et ux. v. POOL et al. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; William E. Huneke Judge.
Action by Albert M. Neis and wife against W. F. Pool and others. Judgment of dismissal, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
John F Aiken and John M. Gleeson, both of Spokane, for appellants.
James A. Brown and Randall & Danskin, all of Spokane, for respondents.
The plaintiffs brought this action to recover for damages and injuries sustained in an automobile collision. At the close of plaintiffs' case, the court dismissed the action, with this resulting appeal.
At the outset we are met with a motion to strike the statement of facts because it was not filed within 90 days after entry of judgment. It has been our oft-repeated holding, under the statute fixing the time for filing statements of facts, that the filing within 90 days after judgment is jurisdictional. Rule VII of this court, adopted January 14 1927, fixes the time as '90 days after the time begins to run within which an appeal may be taken.' Its other provisions show clearly that by the adoption of the rule we intended the filing and service of the statement of facts to still be jurisdictional, but the later steps with regard thereto were not to be so considered. Appellant, recognizing the force of the rule, has sought to show that it was complied with.
The facts in this connection are as follows: The court dismissed the action orally on October 11, 1927, and entered its judgment on October 14, 1927. On the 22d day of October 1927, the court overruled the motion for a new trial. On the 14th of November there was presented to the court a stipulation signed by the attorneys for both parties, authorizing and consenting that the court should sign the following order:
'Judgment in the above-entitled cause having been inadvertently entered by counsel for the defendant on the 14th day of October, 1927, without first giving counsel for the plaintiff notice of the presentation of said judgment, and counsel for plaintiffs and defendants having stipulated that the entry of said judgment may be set aside and the same re-entered as of the 22d day of October, 1927: Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the entry of the judgment in the above-entitled cause on the 14th day of October, 1927, be set aside and held for naught, and that said judgment be re-entered and filed as of the 22d day of October, 1927.'
The order was duly signed by the trial court, whereupon notice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunseath v. Hallauer
...denying the motion for a new trial was entered) and refused to strike them when they had been filed within that period. Neis v. Pool, 148 Wash. 646, 269 P. 801; Thornthwaite v. Greater Seattle R. & I. Co., 160 Wash. 651, 295 P. 933; Seattle National Bank v. Trefethen, 168 Wash. 173, 11 P.2d......
-
Johnson v. Washington Trust Co.
...been held to be mandatory. Loos v. Rondema, 10 Wash. 164, 38 P. 1012, and many cases thereafter. We feel safe in saying that, between Neis v. Pool, supra, and Woodard v. Kuhn, Wash., 200 P.2d 739, decided 10, 1948, the rule has been invoked during every intervening term of this court, and o......
-
Potts v. Nelson, 31356.
...court within ninety days after the date of entry of the final judgment. It has been our uniformholding since the decision in Neis v. Pool, 148 Wash. 646, 269 P. 801,the case decided after the ninety-day rule was adopted on January14, 1927, that failure to comply with the requirements as to ......
-
Perkins v. Perkins, 22380.
...statute fixing the time for filing statements of facts, that the filing within 90 days after judgment is jurisdictional.' Neis v. Pool, 148 Wash. 646, 269 P. 801. has always been held that the time for filing and serving a proposed statement of facts or bill of exceptions cannot be extended......