Littlejohn v. Miller

Citations

• 5 Wash. 399
• 31 P. 758
• 1892 Wash. LEXIS 81

Syllabus

<p>APPEAL—STRIKING BRIEF—STATEMENT OF FACTS — AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE — NOTICE OF SETTLING — MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL — QUIETING TITLE.</p> <p>A motion to strike appellant’s brief on the ground that it contains references to the judge who tried the cause in grossly improper language will be denied, when the motion fails to point out the objectionable language.</p> <p>Where the facts in a cause have been settled and the statement filed in the supreme court, the court has jurisdiction to grant leave to the appellant to have the transcript returned to the lower court in order that the proper certificate may be attached, and notice to the respondent of the time and place of making such second certificate is unnecessary.</p> <p>A notice of the time and place of settling a statement of facts, which designates the place as the “court house,” is sufficiently definite, although the said court house contains several offices wherein the several judges of the court transact business.</p> <p>The failure to file a motion for a new trial within the time allowed by law will not defeat an appeal; nor is it necessary that a statement of facts be prepared for use on the hearing of a motion for a new trial.</p> <p>Notice of appeal may be given subsequent to the settlement of a statement of facts.</p> <p>A vendor, representing himself as a single man, had conveyed to plaintiffs certain real estate upon which there were two mortgages which plaintiffs agreed to pay as part of the purchase price. Subsequently a certain portion of the land was reconveyed to the vendor. The plaintiffs paid off said mortgages and had same assigned to them. Afterwards, in an action for the purchase price, the vendor recovered judgment against plaintiffs. About this time the wife of the vendor, who had been living apart from him in Pennsylvania for a number of years, appeared and claimed a community interest in the lands purchased by plaintiffs from her husband, whereupon plaintiffs brought an action against the v