From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crooks v. Georgetown Transfer Co.

The Supreme Court of Washington
Feb 25, 1925
233 P. 1118 (Wash. 1925)

Opinion

No. 18951. Department One.

February 25, 1925.

APPEAL (11) — NATURE AND GROUNDS — EXISTENCE OF ACTUAL CONTROVERSY. No appeal lies from an order taxing costs.

Appeal from an order of the superior court for Pierce county, Clifford, J., entered August 25, 1924, taxing costs in favor of the defendant, in an action in tort. Dismissed.

P.L. Pendleton and M.J. Gordon, for appellant.

Murphy Kumm, for respondent.


This is an appeal from an order of the trial court taxing costs in favor of the Georgetown Transfer Company, a corporation, in the second trial of an action the merits of which have been before this court on three different occasions, and are reported in 119 Wn. 154, 205 P. 419; 125 Wn. 563, 216 P. 869; and 130 Wn. 88, 226 P. 262.

At the outset we are met by a motion of respondent to dismiss the appeal. The motion must be granted.

We have held in a long line of decisions that this court will not take jurisdiction of a cause simply to determine who shall pay costs in the controversy. Smith v. Palmer, 38 Wn. 276, 80 P. 460; Wilson v. Fraser, 67 Wn. 347, 121 P. 829; White v. Stout, 72 Wn. 62, 121 P. 917; Vollman v. Industrial Workers of the World, 79 Wn. 192, 140 P. 337; Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Hamilton, 80 Wn. 51, 141 P. 199; State v. Furth, 82 Wn. 665, 144 P. 907; Carstens Earles v. Seattle, 84 Wn. 88, 146 P. 381, Ann. Cas. 1917A 1070; Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Fishback, 86 Wn. 225, 145 P. 945; Holly-Mason Hardware Co. v. Schnatterly, 111 Wn. 29, 189 P. 545.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

TOLMAN, C.J., MAIN, BRIDGES, and PARKER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Crooks v. Georgetown Transfer Co.

The Supreme Court of Washington
Feb 25, 1925
233 P. 1118 (Wash. 1925)
Case details for

Crooks v. Georgetown Transfer Co.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM CROOKS, Appellant, v. GEORGETOWN TRANSFER COMPANY, Respondent

Court:The Supreme Court of Washington

Date published: Feb 25, 1925

Citations

233 P. 1118 (Wash. 1925)
233 P. 1118
133 Wash. 182

Citing Cases

Snohomish County v. Boettcher

This court has uniformly held that it will not entertain jurisdiction of an appeal for the sole purpose of…

McConaghy v. State

"(2) If costs are assessable, the court erred in assessing a $10.00 attorney fee, instead of a $5.00 attorney…