Parker v. Denny

• Decision Date: 11 July 1883
• Citation: 2 P. 351,2 Wash.Terr. 176
• Parties: PARKER AND OTHERS v. DENNY.[1]
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

2 P. 351

2 Wash.Terr. 176

PARKER AND OTHERS v. DENNY.^[1]

Supreme Court of Territory of Washington

July 11, 1883

Appeal from First district court.

A. E. Isham, for appellant.

Allen & Thompson, for appellee.

GREENE C.J.

We are agreed that the formal defects of this notice of appeal, in regard to the title of the court and title of the cause, and the particular description of the judgment appealed from, are not such as would warrant a dismissal of the appeal. It is not every non-compliance with the provisions of section 458 that will fall outside the saving provisions of section 464. What the court is from which the appeal is taken, and what the cause and judgment are which are brought here sufficiently appear from the notice. In these particulars there is a substantial compliance with the statute. But this notice has faults not so easily overlooked. Two sorts of notices are prescribed by section 458. One is for cases in error; the other for cases upon appeal. These two, though intended to be similar in structure, do not necessarily assume the same form. The one must contain a particular description of the errors assigned; the other a particular description of each ruling or order whereby the appellant claims to have been aggrieved; or, in other words, one must have in it a specific assignment of errors, the other a specific list of injurious rulings, orders, or decisions. A like purpose is intended to be accomplished both by the list and by the assignment. It is to narrow the range of controversy to its minimum, to define it, and to apprise the adverse party and the appellate court of its extent. But the nature of the device for affecting this purpose is different in the one from what it is in the other. Under the old common-law practice, an assignment of errors was a pleading, the allegations whereof were to be proved by the production of the record from the lower court, and its nature is still the same when incorporated in the notice required by our statutory practice. But the list of obnoxious rulings required to be in the notice under our statute, in an appeal case, is not in the nature of a pleading, but of an election. Notwithstanding this distinction, however, there is no reason why the same rules for brevity and simplicity of statement should not apply as well to the list as to the assignment. They have been assimilated by the legislature, on purpose to simplify and unify the procedure for getting common law and chancery cases into this court for review. It is possible to choose a form of words which will serve equally well...