Hutchinson Co. v. Fahey

168 P. 1139, 99 Wash. 165, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 1027
Washington Supreme Court·Decided December 5, 1917·No. No. 14376·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal is from the order of the lower court granting the motion of defendant to strike certain [166] words, 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

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

168 P. 1139 (Hutchinson Co. v. Fahey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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