Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

C.F. FRANKLIN et al., Respondents, v. C.E. KNOX et al., Appellants.

APPEAL AND ERROR (222) — REQUISITES — PROOF OF SERVICE. An appeal will be dismissed on motion, where the record fails to show service of the notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the judgment or at all.

PER CURIAM.

Respondents have embodied in their brief a motion to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment upon the ground that the notice of appeal was not served upon respondents or their attorney within thirty days after the entry of the judgment, or at all.

The judgment from which the attempt is made to appeal was entered on September 16, 1929. A notice of appeal in due form was prepared and signed under date of September 24, 1929, and on the same day it was filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court. No proof of service thereof was ever filed, and the record clearly establishes that no service of the notice was ever made or attempted to be made.

[1] A notice of appeal which was never served, even though filed in time, was of course an absolute nullity, and, in the absence of any notice of appeal, served and filed within the time fixed by the rules, no jurisdiction was conferred upon this court. Nudd v. Fuller, 150 Wn. 389, 273 P. 200; Lindsay v. Scott, 56 Wn. 206, 105 P. 462; Mathison v. Anderson, 107 Wn. 617, 182 P. 622; Metropolitan Club v. Massachusetts Bonding Insurance Co., 127 Wn. 320, 220 P. 818.

The appeal is dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FRANKLIN v. KNOX
(Jun 10, 1930)