PER CURIAM.-For the reasons assigned in the case of Heath v. McCrea, ante, p. 342, the judgment is affirmed. [No. 3019. Decided December 16, 1898.] CHARLES HOPKINS, Appellant, v. JOHN PARKINSON et al., Respondents. Appeal from Superior Court, King County.-Hon. E. D. BENSON, Judge. Affirmed. Donworth & Howe, and M. Gilliam, for appellant. George E. de Steiguer, and Will H. Thompson, for respondents. PER CURIAM.-An examination of the pleadings in this case and of the testimony submitted convinces us that the judgment rendered was right. It will therefore be affirmed. 120b 714 23 389 20 714 Case 2 e36 188 [No. 3044. Decided December 16, 1898.] CITY OF SEATTLE, Appellant, v. D. K. BAXTER, Respondent. Appeal from Superior Court, King County.-Hon. WILLIAM HICKMAN MOORE, Judge. Affirmed. Pratt & Riddle (W. E. Humphrey, of counsel), for appellant. Harrison Bostwick (John E. Humphries, of counsel), for respondent. PER CURIAM.-This appeal presents but two questions for determination. The first relates to a ruling of the court which permitted the defendant to file an amended answer. The granting or refusing to grant an amendment rests in the sound discretion of the court (Barnes v. Packwood, 10 Wash. 50, 38 Pac. 857), and we do not think that its discretion was abused in the present case. The second question is whether a wife is a necessary party to an action brought to foreclose an assessment lien. The affirma tive of this question is too well settled in this state to admit of present discussion. Littell & Smythe Mnfg. Co. v. Miller, 3 Wash. 480 (28 Pac. 1035); Sagmeister v. Foss, 4 Wash. 320 (30 Pac. 80, 744); Parke v. Seattle, 8 Wash. 78 (35 Pac. 594); Brotton v. Langert, 1 Wash. 73 (23 Pac. 688). Affirmed. (No. 3191. Decided January 21, 1899.] LUCY A. BOARDMAN et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF SPOKANE et al., Respondents. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County.-Hon WILLIAM E. RICHARDSON, Judge. Affirmed. Lewis & Lewis, for appellants. A. G. Avery, for respondents. PER CURIAM.-The allegations of error in this case are (1) That a writ of review was not the proper remedy; and (2) that even though the writ was a proper one, the record did not show such a state of facts as under the law would entitle the plaintiffs to any relief. Without passing on the first proposition, we are satisfied that under the law as announced by a long line of recent decisions on the subject of street assessments, the judgment in this case was correct. It will, therefore, be affirmed. 20a 715 If 20 716 [No. 3193. Decided January 21, 1899.1 JOHANNA C. SALING et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF SPOKANE et al., Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County.-Hon WILLIAM E. RICHARDSON, Judge. Affirmed. Lewis & Lewis, for appellants. A. G. Avery, for respondents. Opinion Per Curiam. [20 Wash. PER CURIAM.-With one exception the questions involved in this case are the same as those involved in No. 3191, Boardman v. Spokane, just decided. But in view of the late decisions of this court on this subject, the judgment will be in all respects affirmed. 20 716 $25 316 20 716 37 457 [No. 3120. Decided February 7, 1899.] W. A. VAN DUSEN, Appellant, v. DANIEL KELLEHER et al., Respondents. Appeal from Superior Court, King County.-Hon. WILLIAM HICKMAN MOORE, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Elwood Harshman, for appellant. Bausman, Kelleher & Emory, for respondents. PER CURIAM.-At the hearing of this cause a motion was made by respondents to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The judgment appealed from was rendered on the 4th of May, 1898. Notice of appeal was served on May 18, 1898, but not filed until June 1, 1898. The appeal bond was served on May 18, 1898, and filed June 1, 1898. Section 4 of the appeal act of 1893 (Session Laws, p. 121, Bal. Code, § 6503), requires the notice of appeal to be filed within five days after service. Section 6 of the same act (Laws 1893, p. 122, Bal. Code, § 6505) provides that an appeal shall not become effectual for any purpose, unless the appeal bond be filed with the clerk of the court within five days after the notice of appeal is given or served. These requirements have been held to be jurisdictional. Hibbard v. Delanty, ante, p. 539. The motion must prevail and the appeal is dismissed. INDEX. ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL. Another Action Pending-Identity of Causes. An order of the trial court abating an action until the trial of a subsequent action between other parties, which involves a portion only of the property involved in the action abated, is erroneous.-Hall v. Woolery.... ACCESSORIES. See CRIMINAL LAW, 12. ACCOUNTING. See PLEADING, 8. ACTIONS. Champerty as a Defense. A champertous contract can be set up as a defense only in an action in which the agreement itself is sought to be enforced.-Straw-Ellsworth Mfg. Co. v. Cain..... See BILLS AND NOTES, 4; CLOUD ON TITLE; FRAUD,1. ACT OF GOD. See CARRIERS, 7. AFFIDAVITS. See APPEAL, 9, 31. ALIENATING AFFECTIONS. See EVIDENCE, 11-13; HUS- AMENDMENT. See APPEAL, 13, 22. APPEAL. 1. Notice. A second notice of appeal may be given and the appeal perfected thereunder, without a formal order of dismissal of an appeal attempted under a prior notice.Sligh v. Shelton Southwestern R. R. Co...... 2. Objections to Bond-When to be Raised. Objection to an appeal bond, because the justification of the sureties is technically defective, cannot be raised for the first time in the appellate court.-Id.... 3. Briefs-References to Transcript. Reference in a brief to the pages of the transcript, as required by the court rules, is not necessary, when the case was disposed of upon a motion to strike portions of the complaint and upon a demurrer to the complaint, and the brief contains the substance of both.-Id.. 440 351 16 16 16 APPEAL-CONTINUED. 4. Same-New Points Cannot be Raised in Supplemental ... 16 6. Record-Delay in Preparation. A motion to strike ap- 7. Bond Conditioned for Costs and Supersedeas-Sufficiency. 97 106 |