Adams v. Columbia Canal Co., 98 P. 741 (Wash. 1908). · Go Syfert
Search
Adams v. Columbia Canal Co., 98 P. 741 (Wash. 1908). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1911 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1911 1968 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. State (2×)
Wyo. · 1991 · confidence medium
Actually what is sometimes called the York rule in Washington state law should more properly be designated the Powell principle derived from State v. Powell, 51 Wash. 372 , 98 P. 741, 742 (1909), where it was stated: “Outside of the evidence of this girl there is no evidence of the offense to submit to the jury.” The court then said: The jury at the trial did not have the fact before it that the witness had made sworn statements contrary to her testimony.
cited Cited "see, e.g." In Re the Personal Restraint of Clements
Wash. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
App. at 221 ; see also State v. Powell, 51 Wash. 372 , 98 P. 741 (1909); State v. York, 41 Wn.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. MacOn
Wash. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Shaffer, 72 Wash.2d 630, 635 , 434 P.2d 591 (1967). [66] Powell, 51 Wash. at 374 , 98 P. 741 . [67] Rolax, 84 Wash.2d at 838 , 529 P.2d 1078 . [68] Id. [69] Wynn, 178 Wash. at 288-89 , 34 P.2d 900 . [70] CP at 106. [71] CP at 106. [72] Id. [73] Id. at 105-06. [74] Id. at 107. [75] Id. at 106. [76] Id. at 107. [77] Id. [78] Id. [79] Id. at 106. [80] Id. at 107. [81] Id. at 108. [82] Petitioner does not prove the first of the five factors required for granting a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, that is "(1) the evidence will probably change the result of the…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
H. C. Adams
v.
The Columbia Canal Company
No. 7596.
Washington Supreme Court.
Dec 26, 1908.
98 P. 741
McDonald, Rupp & Bryson, and Cain & Hurspool, for appellant., Shank & Smith, for respondent.
Rudkin.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Rudkin, J.

— Respondent has moved to strike the statement of facts in this case, because not certified by the trial judge as provided by law. The statement of facts is simply authenticated by the affidavit of the stenographer who reported the case at the trial, and the motion to strike must be granted.

The assignments of error are: (1) That the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the further and affirmative defense contained in the answer; (&) that the court erred in admitting testimony in support of the affirmative defense; and (3) insufficiency of the evidence to justify the judgment. The second and third assignments cannot be considered in the absence of a statement of facts or bill of exceptions, and there is nothing in the record to show that the overruling of the demurrer was prejudicial, if erroneous. All the material allegations of the complaint were denied by the answer, and the court made no finding of facts or conclusions of law. For aught that appears of record, the court may have found that the allegations of the complaint were untrue, and error will never be presumed. Without passing upon the sufficiency of the answer, the judgment must therefore be affirmed; and it is so ordered.

Hadley, C. J., Fullerton, Crow, Mount, and Dunbar, JJ., concur.