¶1(dissenting).-—-I am unable to agree with the foregoing opinion. The rights of Matheson, the real appellant, had been decided in the court below without notice to him, and for that reason the question which the court passed upon, as it affected his interests, had never been called to the attention of that court. This being so, this court could not rightfully give him any relief against such ruling until he had first asked for it in the court-below; and if he must first apply there, the ruling obtained upon such application ought to be reviewed here.
12 Wash. 196
Dickson v. Matheson
Decided June 28, 1895
Washington Supreme Court · decided 1895-06-28
<p>JUDGMENT — MOTION TO VACATE — INCLUSION OR IMPROPER COSTS.</p> <p>Error of law committed by the court in including attorney fees in a judgment rendered against a partnership, upon the confession ■of judgment by one of the partners upon a promissory note of the firm, cannot he corrected by petition to vacate the judgment, when no fraud has been practiced upon the court, but must he reached by appeal. (Hoyt, C. J., dissents.)</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1895-06-28
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 1945
14 state decisions
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 →