Case Name: N. F. Wollin, Appellant, v. Lyman C. Smith, Respondent
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1902-01-27
Citations: 27 Wash. 349
Docket Number: No. 4158
Parties: N. F. Wollin, Appellant, v. Lyman C. Smith, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 349–349

Head Matter:
[No. 4158.
Decided January 27, 1902.]
N. F. Wollin, Appellant, v. Lyman C. Smith, Respondent.
APPEAL-STATEMENT OF FACTS-TIME OF FILING EXTENSION.
Where a statement of facts was not filed within the thirty days required by statute, it should be stricken upon respondent’s motion therefor, even though an extension of time had been granted by the trial court, when it appears that the order was made without notice to the adverse party and in the absence of a stipulation for an extension of time.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County. — Hon. William Tt. Bell, Judge.
Appeal dismissed.
Root, Palmer & Brown, for appellant.
Clise & King and John B. Allen, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Motion to strike statement of facts. Judgment was entered in this cause on October 22, 1901. At that date the time began to run in which the appeal might be taken, and the statement of facts was required to be filed before or within thirty days therefrom. The last day upon which the statement could have been filed or served, without an extension of time by the trial court, was November 21, 1901. Martin v. Sunset Telephone & Tel. Co., 18 Wash. 260 (51 Pac. 376). It was not filed or served until November 22, 1901. It is true that an order was made by the trial court extending the time, but this order was not made by stipulation, and no notice was given to the defendant or his counsel of any application for an extension. This brings the case squarely within the rule announced in McQuesten v. Morrill, 12 Wash. 335 (41 Pac. 56). There being no controversy other than that raised by the statement of facts, the appeal will be dismissed.