Marcinko v. Consolidated Mercury Mining Co.
This text of 19 P.2d 395 (Marcinko v. Consolidated Mercury Mining Co.) 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.
Opinion
Respondent in his brief presents a motion to strike the statement of facts because not filed *94 within the statutory time,, which motion was argued when the case was called for hearing on the merits.
The judgment appealed from was entered on the verdict of a jury on June 25, 1932. Notice of appeal was given within thirty days, hut the statement of facts was not filed until September 28, 1932, more than ninety days after the entry of the judgment.
The motion is well taken, and under our long continued practice must be and it is granted. Perkins v. Perkins, 158 Wash. 351, 290 Pac. 855; Moss v. Moss, 163 Wash. 444, 1 P. (2d) 916; Brainard v. Miser, 165 Wash. 244, 4 P. (2d) 1097.
The errors assigned are based upon the rulings of the trial court in rejecting certain offers of proof and in dismissing the appellant’s cross-complaint. In the absence of any statement of facts, these matters cannot be inquired into, and the judgment appealed from must be and it is affirmed.
Beals, C. J., Main, Steinert, and Blake, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
19 P.2d 395, 172 Wash. 93, 1933 Wash. LEXIS 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcinko-v-consolidated-mercury-mining-co-wash-1933.