Case Name: Hugh Fish, Appellant, v. The Town of Ruston, Respondent
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1914-07-22
Citations: 80 Wash. 700
Docket Number: No. 11476
Parties: Hugh Fish, Appellant, v. The Town of Ruston, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 700–700

Head Matter:
[No. 11476.
Department One.
July 22, 1914.]
Hugh Fish, Appellant, v. The Town of Ruston, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Pierce county, Card, J., entered May 17, 1913, upon sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, dismissing an action on contract, tried to the court.
Appeal dismissed.
Walter M. Harvey (G. C. Israel and H. B. Noland, of counsel), for appellant.
Anthony M. Arntson, for respondent.
Reported in 141 Pac. 1037.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This action was commenced by Hugh Fish against the Town of Ruston, a municipal corporation, to recover for services alleged to have been performed under a written contract and also for damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff by reason of false and fraudulent representations of defendant's agents. From an order dismissing the action, plaintiff has appealed.
Respondent has moved this court to dismiss the appeal for the reason that no abstract of the record has been served or filed by appellant.
The appeal was taken after June 12, 1913, and the record fails to show that any abstract has been served or filed in compliance with the requirements of chapter 116, Laws of 1913, p. 349, § 1 (3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 1730-1). Under the authority of our recent holding in Ollar-Robinson Co. v. O'Neill, ante p. 1, 141 Pac. 194, the appeal will have to be dismissed. It is so ordered.