MacKey v. Champlin

413 P.2d 340, 68 Wash. 2d 398, 1966 Wash. LEXIS 749
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedApril 14, 1966
Docket38170
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 413 P.2d 340 (MacKey v. Champlin) 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
MacKey v. Champlin, 413 P.2d 340, 68 Wash. 2d 398, 1966 Wash. LEXIS 749 (Wash. 1966).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding damages to the plaintiffs *399 (respondents) resulting from certain alleged misrepresentations in the sale of a tavern business, fixtures, and stock of merchandise by the defendant (appellant) to the plaintiffs.

At the time of oral argument before this court the plaintiffs’ counsel advised the court that in examining the record he had discovered for the first time that the defendant’s appeal had not been filed within 30 days from the entry of judgment, as required by Rule on Appeal 33, RCW vol. O.

We have examined the record and find that an order denying a motion for a new trial was entered October 9, 1964; that the judgment upon the jury verdict was entered October 20, 1964. The defendant’s notice of appeal from the judgment was filed November 20, 1964. This was on the 31st day after the entry of the judgment.

We have steadfastly held that compliance with Rule on Appeal 33, supra, requiring the filing of a notice of an appeal from a judgment within 30 days from the entry thereof or within 30 days after an order denying a motion for a new trial entered subsequent to the judgment, is a jurisdictional step in the perfection of an appeal. Lindsay v. Scott, 56 Wash. 206, 105 Pac. 462 (1909); Nudd v. Fuller, 150 Wash. 389, 273 Pac. 200 (1928); Cohen v. Stingl, 51 Wn.2d 866, 322 P.2d 873 (1958).

The defendant argues, however, that his notice of appeal was timely by reason that it was deposited in the mail on the 30th day subsequent to the entry of the judgment. This is not sufficient. The notice of appeal must be filed within the 30-day period to vest this court with jurisdiction.

The notice of appeal in the instant case was not timely filed and this court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal must therefore be dismissed. It is so ordered.

The plaintiffs will be allowed their costs.

June 7, 1966. Petition for rehearing denied.

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

Related

In the Matter of the Dependency of: C.M.P.
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2025
Hama Hama Co. v. Shorelines Hearings Board
536 P.2d 157 (Washington Supreme Court, 1975)
Malott v. Randall
506 P.2d 1296 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1973)
Glass v. Windsor Navigation Co.
504 P.2d 1135 (Washington Supreme Court, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
413 P.2d 340, 68 Wash. 2d 398, 1966 Wash. LEXIS 749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mackey-v-champlin-wash-1966.