Case ID: wash-terr_3/html/0473-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Decided January 30, 1888.]
    JOHN C. TURNER, Auditor, etc., v. S. J. SAXON.
    1. Appeal Act op 1883 — Practice in Supreme Court — Continuance.—If notice of appeal, under appeal act of 1883, has been given in the District Court less than thirty days prior to first day of next term of Supreme Court, the appellant is not entitled to have such appeal heard at such term; but such cases, no positive rule being fixed by law, nor regulated by rule of court, must be governed by considerations of convenience and propriety, as they present themselves to the mind of the court.
    2. Same — Appeal—Section 460, Code of "Washington Territory. — Section 460 of the Code of Washington Territory has no application to the appeal act of 1883.
    
      Appeal from the District Court holding terms at Spokane Falls. Fourth District.
    Motion for continuance until next term, because notice of appeal in court below was not given thirty days prior to the first day of the term of the Supreme Court.
    
      Messrs. Sullivan, Wolford & Sullivan, for the Appellee, favoring the motion.
    
      Mr. JS. Kincaid, for the Appellant, contra.
    
   By the Court.

Notice of appeal was not given in the court below thirty days prior to the first day of this term of court, and the appellee objects to the appeal being heard at this term. The appeal was taken under the appeal act of 1883, and that act does not prescribe the length of time which must elapse between the taking of an appeal and the beginning of the next term, to entitle the appeal to be heard at such term. We do not think section 460 of the Code has any application to appeals taken under said act. No positive rule, therefore, is fixed by law, and cases must be governed by considerations of convenience and propriety, as they present themselves to the mind of the court. No doubt the matter can and ought to be governed by a general rule, and as we are now considering amendments to the rules of the court, this matter may be regulated, for the future, in that way. In the absence of any such rule, we are disposed to hold that we will not hear the appeal now, but will let it go over until the adjourned term; and it is so ordered.