Court Opinion

ID: 9567005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:46:44.435436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:49:01.031514
License: Public Domain

Grady, C. J.
(dissenting) — I am not in accord with that part of the majority opinion which in effect decides that this court is without power to consider a statement of facts on appeal when it is not filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court within the time prescribed by rule of court, and that in such circumstances such statement of facts must be stricken from our records. The rule that power is lacking is based upon the idea that the timely filing of a statement of facts is one of the jurisdictional steps necessary to be taken to perfect an appeal to this court.
When this court was governed in its procedure by statutes, the rule was regarded as mandatory. However, we decided-in the case of In re Local Imp. Districts No. 29 to 37, in the Town of Grandview, 108 Wash. 211, 183 Pac. 107, that *427the time for filing a notice of appeal to a superior court was tolled during such time as a public officer failed to perform his duty in the preparation of the necessary transcript. The filing of the transcript within a specified time was jurisdictional. We held it was error for the superior court to dismiss the appeal. I do not find that the case has ever been cited, modified, overruled, or used in any manner.
• Much injustice has been done to litigants because of failure of their attorneys to timely take jurisdictional steps in an appeal. Advocates of the proposal to transfer authority from the legislature to the court to provide for and to regulate procedure urged that such injustices could be avoided if the court had the power to exercise its discretion in proper cases. By chapter 118, Laws of 1925, p. 187 [cf. RCW 2.04.190], the legislature surrendered to the supreme court the power to prescribe appellate procedure by rules, but the expected relief through the exercise of the court’s discretion did not happen for the reason that the court continued in the beaten path and applied its rules in the same way as it had the mandatory statutes. The judges of this court took the view that when we prescribed rules setting forth jurisdictional steps to be taken in an appeal the court was automatically powerless to except any case from their operation, no matter how great the injustice to the litigant might be. The late Judge Herman saw the fallacy of such a viewpoint and gave expression to it in Potlatch Lbr. Co. v. Ferry County, 167 Wash. 491, 9 P. (2d) 783. He found support for his view in United States v. Breitling, 61 U. S. 252, 15 L. Ed. 900, and Evans v. Backer, 101 N. Y. 289, 4 N. E. 516. Those cases pointed out that the power of the court to make rules carried with it the right to waive them or to except a particular case from their operation whenever the purpose of justice so required. We continued to disregard Judge Herman’s very logical viewpoint until we were confronted with such situations as were presented in State v. Brown, 26 Wn. (2d) 857, 176 P. (2d) 293, and State ex rel. Bird v. Superior Court, 30 Wn. (2d) 110, 190 P. (2d) 762. In those cases, we recognized that we did have the power to except a particular case from the operation of *428a jurisdictional rule, but instead of standing on the doctrine of the Grandview case, supra, or accepting the logic of Judge Herman, we sought to justify our action on the ground that we were confronted with capital cases.
We should hold in this case that our rules have not divested us of our inherent powers, and that we do have the power and authority to entertain an appeal though not timely taken, and that, while we may dismiss such appeal for want of timely action, we are not obliged to do. so, Such an assertion on our part is consistent with both the letter and spirit of the act of 1925, and is a continuation of our expressed views that we will dismiss appeals when taken for the purpose of delay and not diligently prosecuted, and is also an adherence to the view that the members of the bar must familiarize themselves with our rules and observe them. In this way, we may have orderly procedure and expedition of appeals, and at the same time be in a position to observe due process of law and prevent injustices to litigants because of excusable delays or-oversights by their attorneys.
The motion to strike the statement of facts should be denied.
June 3, 1954. Petition for rehearing denied.