State ex rel. Hinchey v. Allyn

34 P. 914, 7 Wash. 285, 1893 Wash. LEXIS 139
Washington Supreme Court·Decided November 17, 1893·No. No. 1125·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Stiles, J.

A judge of the superior court whose term of office expired on the second Monday of January, 1893, cannot be required- by mandamus to settle and certify a statement of facts on appeal after the expiration of his term. [286]*286The act of January 21,1893 (Laws, p. 6), does not purport to do more than to authorize the ex-judges to settle- and certify, it does not, and could not, require them to do anything.

The application for a writ in this case is, therefore, denied.

Dunbar, C. J., and Hoyt, J., concur.

Scott, J., concurs in the result.

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

State ex rel. Hinchey v. Allyn, 34 P. 914, 7 Wash. 285, 1893 Wash. LEXIS 139 (Wash. 1893).

34 P. 914 (State ex rel. Hinchey v. Allyn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Priddy v. Gibson
86 S.W. 177 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1905)
Montana Ore Purchasing Co. v. Lindsay
63 P. 715 (Montana Supreme Court, 1901)
Hallam v. Tillinghast
52 P. 329 (Washington Supreme Court, 1898)