Fish v. Town of Ruston
This text of 141 P. 1037 (Fish v. Town of Ruston) 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.
Opinion
This action was commenced by Hugh Fish against the Town of Ruston, a municipal corporation, to recover for services alleged to have been performed under a written contract and also for damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff by reason of false and fraudulent representations of defendant’s agents. From an order dismissing the action, plaintiff has appealed.
Respondent has moved this court to dismiss the appeal for the reason that no abstract of the record has been served or filed by appellant.
The appeal was taken after June 12, 1913, and the record fails to show that any abstract has been served or filed in compliance with the requirements of chapter 116, Laws of 1913, p. 349, § 1 (3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 1730-1). Under the authority of our recent holding in Ollar-Robinson Co. v. O’Neill, ante p. 1, 141 Pac. 194, the appeal will have to be dismissed. It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
141 P. 1037, 80 Wash. 700, 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fish-v-town-of-ruston-wash-1914.