Seattle & Northern Ry. Co. v. Bowman
Decision Date | 26 March 1907 |
Citation | 89 P. 399,46 Wash. 90 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | SEATTLE & NORTHERN RY. CO. v. BOWMAN et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Skagit County; George A. Joiner, Judge.
Action by the Seattle & Northern Railway Company against the Union Wharf Company, in which Anne C. Bowman and others intervened. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint in intervention and one denying leave to amend the same interveners appeal. Dismissed.
For dissenting opinion, see 96 P. 837.
Frank Quinby, for appellants.
L. C Gilman and B. O. Graham, for respondent.
This action was originally brought by respondent against the defendant wharf company. Subsequently the appellants asked and were granted permission to file a complaint in intervention. To this complaint a demurrer was interposed and sustained. Appellants then asked permission to amend their complaint by adding thereto a new paragraph which was set out. This motion was by the court denied. An order sustaining the demurrer and one denying leave to amend the complaint in intervention were signed and entered by the court. No judgment was ever entered. From the orders mentioned, this appeal is taken.
Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that neither of said orders is appealable. Appellants, in their reply brief admit that the order sustaining the demurrer was not appealable, but contend that the order denying leave to amend the complaint in intervention is appealable. They base their right to appeal upon subdivisions 6 and 7, § 6500, Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St., which are as follows:
We think this was not a final order. It did not 'prevent a final judgment,' nor necessarily 'discontinue the action.' Appellants had intervened. Their complaint had been held insufficient upon demurrer. They sought by a motion permission to amend. This permission was denied. They had the privilege of standing upon their original complaint, or of asking to have it amended in some different manner, or perhaps could have proceeded in some other way. The order of the court did not necessarily terminate their rights. This could have been done only by a judgment of dismissal, or some order or proceeding equivalent thereto. This and other courts have repeatedly held such orders to be nonappealable. In State ex rel. Small v. Fleming, 37 Wash. 531, 79 P 1115, this court said: In Flannigan v. Lingren, 122 Wis. 445, 100 N.W. 818, the Supreme Court of that state used this language: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Seattle & N. R. Co. v. Bowman
...P. 837 46 Wash. 90 SEATTLE & N. R. CO. v. BOWMAN. Supreme Court of WashingtonMarch 26, 1907 For majority opinion, see 89 P. 399. FULLERTON, J. The order of the court refusing the intervener leave to amend after sustaining a demurrer to the complaint in intervention determined the action in ......