Baker v. Eyres

32 P. 1073, 6 Wash. 132, 1893 Wash. LEXIS 242
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 23, 1893
DocketNo. 866
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 P. 1073 (Baker v. Eyres) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baker v. Eyres, 32 P. 1073, 6 Wash. 132, 1893 Wash. LEXIS 242 (Wash. 1893).

Opinion

[133]*133The opinion of the court was delivered by

Stiles, J.

This is a motion to dismiss upon short record. In response to the motion to dismiss, the appellants showed that the judgment of the superior court was entered September 26, 1892; that they filed a bond on appeal October 22d, and notice of appeal November 2d, of the same year. The notice of appeal, after service upon the opposite party, was retained by the attorney for appellants, until January 11, 1893. On February 20th, no transcript having been filed in this court, the respondent filed a short record, and on the 2d day of March gave notice of motion to dismiss, by mail, returnable March 17th. On the 7th day of March the transcript was filed without any showing justifying the delay, except that the filing in this court occurred within sixty days after January 11th. It is claimed by the appellants that, inasmuch as the statute does not prescribe any time at which a notice of appeal shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court, after having been served upon respondent, it was his discretion to retain it as long as he saw fit, provided that it be filed within six months from the date of the entry of the judgment. We cannot concede this proposition to be correct. The notice should be filed with the clerk within a reasonable time, and we find that, in this instance, upwards of two months was not a reasonable time. It is evident that the filing of the transcript on the 7th of March was due to the prompting of the notice to dismiss, and we think the motion should prevail. So ordered.

Dunbar, C. J., and Scott and Hoyt, JJ., concur.

Anders, J., not sitting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stierlen v. Stierlen
78 N.W. 990 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 P. 1073, 6 Wash. 132, 1893 Wash. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-eyres-wash-1893.