Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Wash. 16

Gower v. Gower

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 23, 1890

Washington Supreme Court · decided 1890-01-23

Action by appellee in tbe district court, bolding terms at. Tacoma, to recover certain real estate. On tbe 20tb day May, 1888, tbe case came on regularly for trial before the judge at bis chambers. No proof to sustain the allegations-of tbe complaint was offered, and tbe court made its findings, and decree in favor of appellant.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-01-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1895

6 state decisions

201890decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Anders, C. J.

¶2The court below rendered an affirmative decree in this cause in favor of appellant, the defendant therein.

¶3After the term of the district court at which said decree was entered, but within five months subsequent to its adjournment, the plaintiff (appellee herein) applied to the court, in the usual manner, to vacate said decree, which was accordingly done. From this order of the district court defendant appeals.

¶4Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the order appealed from was not a final judgment or decision, and, therefore, not reviewable in this court.

¶5In the case of Lilienthal v. Wright, recently decided by this court, ante, p. 1, we held that an order of the district court vacating a judgment at the same term at which it was rendered, was not subject to review in this court. And as we are of the opinion that § 109 of the code extends the time during which the court or judge may grant relief from the effects of judgments, for the period of five mouths after the adjournment of the term when rendered, the motion must be governed by that opinion and decided accordingly.

¶6It follows, therefore, that the motion must be sustained and the appeal dismissed; and it is so ordered.

Stiles, Hoyt, Dunbar and Scott, JJ., concur.
/1/wash/16 · .json · Public domain