State v. Superior Court

105 P. 815, 56 Wash. 287, 1909 Wash. LEXIS 889
Washington Supreme Court·Decided December 11, 1909·No. No. 8465·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Mount, J.

This is an application for a writ of review. It appears therefrom that the Olympia Light & Power Company brought an action against the Olympia Brewing Company, to condemn certain property which was alleged to be necessary for a public use, the title of which property was alleged to be in the brewing company. The relator intervened in that action, and filed an answer therein. The Olympia Light & Power Company filed a demurrer to that answer, which demurrer was sustained by the trial court, and on May 4, 1908, the intervener was dismissed. Forty-three days later, viz., on June 16, 1908, the intervener in that action, the relator here, appealed from the order of dismissal to this court. That appeal was dismissed on October 28, 1909, for the reason that the order was not an appealable order. [288]*288Olympia Light & Power Co. v. Tumwater Power & Water Co., 55 Wash. 392, 104 Pac. 778. Thereafter, on November 11, 1909, this application was filed here for a writ to review the order of May 4, 1908, dismissing the interveners from the condemnation case.

While the statute fixes no time within which the writ of review must be applied for, we have held by analogy that the writ must be applied for within the time fixed for taking an appeal. State ex rel. Lowary v. Superior Court, 41 Wash. 450, 83 Pac. 726; State ex rel. Alexander v. Superior Court, 42 Wash. 684, 85 Pac. 673. The time within which an appeal may be taken from a' final order in condemnation cases is fixed by law at within thirty days after the entry of the judgment. Bal. Code, § 5645. The time for prosecuting the writ of review had expired when the relator sought to appeal to this court from the order now sought to be reviewed. It was too late at that time to prosecute the writ of review. No excuse is offered why the writ was not applied for within the thirty days after the order was entered, and none appears here now. The fact that an appeal was pending in this court from June 16, 1908, until October 28, 1909, is of course no excuse for not prosecuting the writ of review prior to June 16, 1908.

The application must be denied for the reason that it was not seasonably made.

Dunbar, Parker, Crow, Morris, and Gose, JJ., concur.

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

State v. Superior Court, 105 P. 815, 56 Wash. 287, 1909 Wash. LEXIS 889 (Wash. 1909).

105 P. 815 (State v. Superior Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Vance v. City of Seattle
569 P.2d 1194 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1977)
City of Seattle v. Bell
92 P.2d 197 (Washington Supreme Court, 1939)
State Ex Rel. Barry v. Superior Court
35 P.2d 1095 (Washington Supreme Court, 1934)
State Ex Rel. Clark v. Superior Court
10 P.2d 233 (Washington Supreme Court, 1932)
State Ex Rel. Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Kuykendall
236 P. 99 (Washington Supreme Court, 1925)
State ex rel. Hawksworth v. Clifford
226 P. 272 (Washington Supreme Court, 1924)
State ex rel. Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Superior Court
171 P. 238 (Washington Supreme Court, 1918)
Pullman Co. v. State Board of Equalization
171 P. 260 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1918)
State ex rel. Jakubowski v. Superior Court
84 Wash. 663 (Washington Supreme Court, 1915)
State ex rel. Blackman v. Superior Court for Franklin County
143 P. 889 (Washington Supreme Court, 1914)
State ex rel. Langley v. Superior Court
134 P. 173 (Washington Supreme Court, 1913)
State ex rel. Schmidt v. Superior Court
114 P. 427 (Washington Supreme Court, 1911)
State v. Superior Court
105 P. 816 (Washington Supreme Court, 1909)