History
  • No items yet
midpage
Tustin v. McFarland
4 Wash. 103
Wash.
1892
Check Treatment

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Stiles, J. —

There was great delay in filing the transcript, but it was filed in the month of January. After upwards of forty days, respondents move to dismiss, no brief haring been filed by appellant. In response, a counter motion is made for leave to file briefs, and for the hearing of the cause. No reason is given for this delay, except that counsel was not sure whether or not the delayed filing of the transcript was sufficient. We do not think the showing a good one. Counsel for respondents were very lenient in not moving to dismiss for failure to file the transcript until several months after it was due; and they would probably have stipulated that the cause might go on had they been applied to. But no applica*104tion, either to them or the court, was made until the hearing of their motion to dismiss. We think the delay was unreasonable, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Anders, C. J., and Dunbar, Scott and Hoyt, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Tustin v. McFarland
Court Name: Washington Supreme Court
Date Published: Mar 29, 1892
Citation: 4 Wash. 103
Docket Number: No. 476
Court Abbreviation: Wash.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.