Gordon v. Nelson

30 P. 647, 4 Wash. 817, 1892 Wash. LEXIS 326
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 8, 1892
DocketNo. 386
StatusPublished

This text of 30 P. 647 (Gordon v. Nelson) 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
Gordon v. Nelson, 30 P. 647, 4 Wash. 817, 1892 Wash. LEXIS 326 (Wash. 1892).

Opinion

Anders, C. J. —

The statement of facts in this case was not signed and certified by the judge who tried the cause and rendered judgment therein until two months after he had ceased to hold office, and, for that reason, respondents claim that the statement is not legally authenticated, and, therefore, move the court to strike it from the record.

The question as to the power or authority of a judge to settle and certify a statement of facts after goingout of office was considered and passed upon by this court in Faulconer v. Warner, 2 Wash. 525 (27 Pac. Rep. 274), and in Gunderson v. Cochrane, 3 Wash. 476 (28 Pac. Rep. 1105). And it was held in those cases, that the settlement of a statement of facts to be made a part of the record on appeal, is the exercise of a judicial function, which can only be done by a judge while in office.

On the authority of these cases the motion to strike must prevail, and, as that leaves nothing for the court to determine, the appeal must be dismissed.

Stiles, Hoyt, Dunbar and Scott, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Faulconer v. Warner
27 P. 274 (Washington Supreme Court, 1891)
Gunderson v. Cochrane
28 P. 1105 (Washington Supreme Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 P. 647, 4 Wash. 817, 1892 Wash. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-nelson-wash-1892.