[Nos. 31411, 31412. Department One. Supreme Court November 2, 1950.]
IRA V. ROBINSON et al., Respondents, v. RODERIC OLZENDAM,
as Director of the Department of Social Security,
Appellant.FRED I. MUNSON et al., Respondents, v. RODERIC OLZENDAM,
as Director of the Department of Social Security,
Appellant.«1»
[1] APPEAL AND ERROR - RECORD - CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL JUDGE - FAILURE TO IDENTIFY DEPARTMENT RECORD CONSIDERED UPON TRIAL - PROCEEDINGS UNDER CITIZENS' SECURITY ACT. On appeal to the supreme court in a proceeding under the citizens' security act (Rem. Supp. 1949, § 998-33i), the certificate to the statement of facts will be held to be defective, where it fails to identify the departmental record which was considered by the superior court and fails to state whether any additional evidence, testimony, or exhibits were presented by the parties or admitted by the court; and the cause will be remanded to the superior court to enable that court to amend its certificate.
Appeals from judgments of the superior court for Whatcom county, Dawson, J., entered December 21, 1949, in actions arising under the citizens' security act. Remanded.
The Attorney General and Jane Dowdle, Assistant, for appellant.
«1» Reported in 223 P. (2d) 605.
Nov. 1950] ROBINSON v. OLZENDAM. 337
PER CURIAM. -
These cases were submitted jointly for decision. Appellant in each case is represented by the attorney general. No appearance was made in this court by the respondents in either case.
The question involved is whether the department of social security acted arbitrarily or capriciously or contrary to law in considering respondents' ownership of their homes as a resource and assigning a use value to be used in determining the amount of respondents' grants.
Upon an examination of the record in this court it was found that the trial court's certificate attached to the statement of facts did not purport to identify the departmental record which was apparently considered by the court upon the trial of these cases.
Counsel were notified of this condition of the record and the attorney general submitted a list of authorities in support of his contention that the certificate attached to the statement of facts was not defective.
[1] After considering the applicable statute (Rem. Supp. 1949, § 9998-33i) and the cases cited by counsel, we are of the opinion that the certificate is defective in that it fails to identify the departmental record which was considered by the court and fails to state whether any additional evidence, testimony or exhibits were presented by the parties or admitted by the court.
The cause is remanded to the superior court to enable that court to amend its certificate so as to supply the required information in accordance with this opinion.
No costs will be allowed until final disposition of this appeal is made by this court.