title:
The County of King, Plaintiff in error vs Geo D Hill et al, Defendants in error, Supplemental Brief.
title:
8
creator:
The County of King
contributor:
Ronald
contributor:
Piles
contributor:
W. S. Bush
date:
1890-05
publisher:
Washington State Supreme Court
type:
Civil
subject:
Civil Procedure
language:
eng
format:
application/pdf
description:
Prior History: Error to District Court, King County.Action by the County of King against George D. Hill, as treasurer of said county, and his sureties, on his official bond, to recover an alleged deficit in public funds. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. In this court defendants move to affirm the judgment of the district court upon the ground that the evidence in the case has not been certified to this court, and no statement of all the material facts in the cause has been certified to by the judge before whom the action was tried, nor by the judge of the court in which the judgment was rendered.Appeal – Statement of Facts – Notice of Settlement – Requisites of Certificate – Practice – On appeal, the written opinion of the trial judge, not purporting to be a finding of facts, will, on motion, be stricken from the transcript.Under the appeal act of 1883, allowing six months in which to serve notice of appeal, and thirty days in which to give notice of a settlement of the statement of facts, it is immaterial which of the notices precedes the other.Where judges are allowed by statute to exchange courts on request, a judge, who has tried a cause in another district than his own, may certify and settle the statement of facts, after returning to his own district.A certificate by the trial judge, that the statement “contains all the material facts in the cause relating to the execution of the bond in suit (except the original bond itself), and the ruling and decision on the question of the execution thereof, and the dismissal of said cause,” is not a sufficient compliance with the provisions of the appeal act of 1883, requiring that the statement shall contain “the material facts in the cause.”The fact that appellees were present with a copy of the proposed statement, when the facts were settles, and offered no amendments, does not estop them from moving to strike out the statement of the facts on account of the insufficiency of the judge’s certificate.Although the statement of facts has been stricken out, a motion to affirm the judgment should be denied, and the appeal heard upon its merits, where there are several assignments of error.
relation:
King County v. Hill, 1 Wash. 63 (1890)
relation:
23 P. 926
rights:
These materials are public records. Please see Washington State Court Rules: General Rules 31 for details https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_31_00_00.pdf
