Case Name: William Crooks, Respondent, v. William R. Rust et al., Appellants
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1923-07-14
Citations: 125 Wash. 563
Docket Number: No. 17901
Parties: William Crooks, Respondent, v. William R. Rust et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
[No. 17901.
Department' Two.
July 14, 1923.]
William Crooks, Respondent, v. William R. Rust et al., Appellants.
Aepeal (44, 46)—Decisions Reviewable—Pinal Orders. Defendant, granted a new trial in a jury case, cannot appeal from an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for plaintiff; since there is no final appealable judgment, and a cause cannot he brought up for review by piecemeal.
Appeal from an order of the superior court for Pierce county, Clifford, J., entered October 6, 1922, denying a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, in an action for damages sustained through an obstruction in a street.
Appeal dismissed.
Murphy & Kumm and Shorett, McLaren & Shorett, for appellants.
P. L. Pendleton and Gordon & Nolte, for respondent.
Reported in 216 Pac. 869.

Opinion:
Pemberton, J.
The facts involved in this case are fully set forth in the case of Crooks v. Rust, 119 Wash. 154, 205 Pac. 419.
Upon retrial, a verdict was rendered in favor of the respondent in the sum of $1,500. Appellant thereupon moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The former was denied and the motion for a new trial was granted on the ground of the insufficiency of evidence to sustain the verdict. This appeal is taken from the order denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Appellant, having been granted a new trial, cannot appeal upon the ground of a denial of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for the reason that there has been no final appealable order or judgment entered, and "this court will not 'permit a cause to be brought before it by piecemeal for review, unless clearly authorized so to do by legislative enactment.' " Schlotfeldt v. Bull, 13 Wash. 242, 54 Pac. 33; Windt v. Banniza, 2 Wash. 147, 26 Pac. 189.
Upon the court's own motion, the appeal is dismissed.
Main, C. J., Fullerton, Parker, and Tolman, JJ., concur.