McCart v. Racine Woolen Mills, Blake & Co.
This text of 93 P. 517 (McCart v. Racine Woolen Mills, Blake & 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
This is an appeal from an order quashing the service of summons. The notice to quash was heard on affidavits which accompanied the motion, affidavits in answer thereto, and affidavits, in reply to the answering affidavits. The respondent moves to dismiss the appeal. The motion must be granted. This court has repeatedly held that it cannot review a question of fact based upon affidavits unless the affidavits are brought before the court by the method provided by law for bringing evidence into this court. This was not done in this case. The appellant caused the affidavits to be certified by the clerk as part of the transcript, and procured a certificate of the judge certifying that the affidavits [315]*315were “presented to the court, and examined, and passed upon by the court at the hearing of said motion,” but this does not comply with the statute. The statute requires that evidence be brought into this court by a bill of exceptions or a statement of facts. Jacobsen v. Lunn, 16 Wash. 487, 48 Pac. 237; State v. Anderson, 20 Wash. 193, 55 Pac. 39; Chevalier & Co. v. Wilson, 30 Wash. 227, 70 Pac. 487; Anderson v. McGregor, 36 Wash. 124, 78 Pac. 776; Soder v. Adams Hardware Co., 38 Wash. 607, 80 Pac. 775; Taylor v. Modern Woodmen of America, 42 Wash. 304, 84 Pac. 867.
The appeal is dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
93 P. 517, 48 Wash. 314, 1908 Wash. LEXIS 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccart-v-racine-woolen-mills-blake-co-wash-1908.