Holm v. Gilchrist

Washington Supreme Court

Holm v. Gilchrist

34 P. 1102, 7 Wash. 615, 1893 Wash. LEXIS 211

Washington Supreme Court·Decided November 22, 1893·No. No. 951·Published

Opinion

Stiles, J.

This was an equity case, and upon the 4th day of January, 1893, the judge who tried the cause made a certificate to a statement of facts on appeal, stating that it contained all the testimony and objections and exceptions to the acceptance and rejection of testimony. This is precisely the state of facts passed upon in Clark-Harris Company v. Douthitt, 4 Wash. 405 (30 Pac. Rep.744).

The motion to strike must, therefore, prevail, and the appeal be dismissed.

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

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

Stiles, J.

This was an equity case, and upon the 4th day of January, 1893, the judge who tried the cause made a certificate to a statement of facts on appeal, stating that it contained all the testimony and objections and exceptions to the acceptance and rejection of testimony. This is precisely the state of facts passed upon in Clark-Harris Company v. Douthitt, 4 Wash. 405 (30 Pac. Rep.744).

The motion to strike must, therefore, prevail, and the appeal be dismissed.

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

Holm v. Gilchrist, 34 P. 1102, 7 Wash. 615, 1893 Wash. LEXIS 211 (Wash. 1893).

Pincite

34 P. 1102 (Holm v. Gilchrist) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related