Case Name: The County of Clallam, Appellant, v. Mussena J. Clump et al., Respondents
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1896-11-23
Citations: 15 Wash. 593
Docket Number: No. 2289
Parties: The County of Clallam, Appellant, v. Mussena J. Clump et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 593–594

Head Matter:
[No. 2289.
Decided November 23, 1896.]
The County of Clallam, Appellant, v. Mussena J. Clump et al., Respondents.
APPEALABLE ORDER — GRANT OP NEW TRIAL — MOTION FOR BY BOTH ' PARTIES.
Where both parties to an action move for a new trial and it is granted on the motion of one and denied on the motion of the other, neither party can appeal therefrom for the reason that the order must be held to have been granted at the request of each.
Appeal from Superior Court, Clallam County.— Hon. R. A. Ballinger, Judge.
Affirmed.
James Stewart, and J. T. Ronald, for appellant.
A. R. Coleman, and Trumbull & Trumbull, for respondents.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hoyt, C. J.
The issues made by thie pleadings in this action were tried to "a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for a part only of its claim. The plaintiff made a motion to vacate and set aside this verdict for errors of law occurring upon the trial to which it had excepted.
Thereafter the defendants also moved for a new trial for reasons set out in the motion. The two motions were submitted to the court without argument, and an order was made by it which in terms granted the motion of the defendants, and set aside the verdict, and overruled the motion of the plaintiff. From this order this appeal has been prosecuted.
We cannot go into the alleged errors discussed in appellant's brief for the reason that appellant is not now in a position to obtain any benefit from such errors, if errors they were. The order appealed from, though on its face purporting to grant the motion of the defendants only, and to deny that of plaintiff, in fact granted what each of the parties asked: that was, to have the verdict vacated and set aside. This being so, neither of the parties could appeal from such order for the reason that it must be held to have been entered at the request of each of them.
The order will be affirmed.
Dunbar, Scott, Anders and Gordon, JJ., concur.