Hutchinson Co. v. Fahey

168 P. 1139, 99 Wash. 165, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 1027
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 5, 1917
DocketNo. 14376
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 P. 1139 (Hutchinson Co. v. Fahey) 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
Hutchinson Co. v. Fahey, 168 P. 1139, 99 Wash. 165, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 1027 (Wash. 1917).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal is from the order of the lower court granting the motion of defendant to strike certain [166]*166words, phrases and paragraphs from the plaintiff’s complaint. No judgment of dismissal or other final judgment has been entered in the cause, nor does it appear that the appellant refused to plead further, nor that the order granting the motion determined the particular matter in issue. We have repeatedly held that such an order is not appealable. Durk v. Scully, 41 Wash. 357, 83 Pac. 426; Methow Canal Co. v. Barton, 71 Wash. 401, 128 Pac. 627; Virtue v. Stanley, 79 Wash. 87, 139 Pac. 764.

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

Related

Arlt v. Arlt
101 P.2d 336 (Washington Supreme Court, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 P. 1139, 99 Wash. 165, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 1027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchinson-co-v-fahey-wash-1917.