State v. Superior Court of Spokane County

• Decision Date: 31 October 1893
• Parties: STATE EX REL. MALTBY v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SPOKANE COUNTY ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

34 P. 922

7 Wash. 223

STATE EX REL. MALTBY v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SPOKANE COUNTY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 31, 1893

Mandamus on relation of William Maltby to the superior court of Spokane county to take jurisdiction of an appeal from a justice of the peace. Writ granted.

Dunbar, C.J., dissenting.

Prather & Danson, for the State.

Watkins & Warren, for respondents.

STILES, J.

This is an application for a mandamus to require the superior court of Spokane county to entertain jurisdiction of an appeal from a justice's court. The notice of appeal was as follows: "State of Washington, county of Spokane-ss.: Before T. J. Cartwright, justice of the peace. R. F. Fifer, plaintiff, vs. William Maltby, defendant. To the above-named plaintiff, and his attorneys: You will please take notice that the above-named defendant appeals to the superior court from a judgment heretofore rendered by said justice of the peace against him in the above-entitled cause. [Signed.]" The objection that this notice was not entitled in a court is not well taken. There is no court apart from the officer who is, by the constitution, designated as a justice of the peace. Article 4, § 1. A cause is entitled in the superior court of Spokane county, without regard to the personnel of the judge; but it would not be sufficient to entitle a cause in the justice's court of precinct No. 1 of Spokane county, without naming the particular officer. The body of the notice is sufficient, since it amply notifies the opposite party that an appeal is taken in the particular case. Lancaster v. McDonald, 14 Or. 264, 12 P. 374. The practice in cases of this kind was settled in State v. Hunter, 3 Wash. 92, 27 P. 1076, in accordance with the very highest authority, and we see no reason to change that ruling. Let the alternative writ be made peremptory.

ANDERS, SCOTT, and HOYT, JJ., concur.

DUNBAR, C.J., (dissenting.)

I think the notice is too indefinite to convey any information to the plaintiff. Neither the date of the judgment, nor the judgment itself, is described. It is not uncommon for different judgments to be rendered in the same court concerning the same parties, and it is inexcusable carelessness not to describe the judgment appealed from in some way. The writ should not issue.