Davies v. Flett

Washington Supreme Court

Davies v. Flett

119 P.2d 686, 11 Wash. 2d 353

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 24, 1941

DocketNo. 28006.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 119 P.2d 686 (Davies v. Flett) 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

Davies v. Flett, 119 P.2d 686, 11 Wash. 2d 353 (Wash. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Robinson, C. J.

This action was brought by plaintiffs, seeking a decree adjudging that a deed executed by John T. Hollis and Hester M. Hollis, his wife, was a mortgage, and for other relief. The trial court, after *354 a trial lasting four days, held that the deed was what it purported to be, an absolute conveyance of the land, and entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decree accordingly. A proper notice of appeal was served and filed, and also a transcript of the record, but no properly prepared or certified statement of facts has been brought to this court. Appellants prepared a document, denominated a “proposed statement of facts,” which they presented to the trial judge, together with a certificate for his signature, but he refused to sign the certificate, for reasons which are fully set forth in State ex rel. Davies v. Superior Court, 3 Wn. (2d) 102, 99 P. (2d) 934, in which a writ of mandate was unsuccessfully sought to compel him to do so.

As no statement of facts has been furnished, and we find no error in the record as it stands, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Blake, Main, Millard, and Steinert, JJ., concur.

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

Robinson, C. J.

This action was brought by plaintiffs, seeking a decree adjudging that a deed executed by John T. Hollis and Hester M. Hollis, his wife, was a mortgage, and for other relief. The trial court, after *354 a trial lasting four days, held that the deed was what it purported to be, an absolute conveyance of the land, and entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decree accordingly. A proper notice of appeal was served and filed, and also a transcript of the record, but no properly prepared or certified statement of facts has been brought to this court. Appellants prepared a document, denominated a “proposed statement of facts,” which they presented to the trial judge, together with a certificate for his signature, but he refused to sign the certificate, for reasons which are fully set forth in State ex rel. Davies v. Superior Court, 3 Wn. (2d) 102, 99 P. (2d) 934, in which a writ of mandate was unsuccessfully sought to compel him to do so.

As no statement of facts has been furnished, and we find no error in the record as it stands, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Blake, Main, Millard, and Steinert, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 P.2d 686, 11 Wash. 2d 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davies-v-flett-wash-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack