
    [No. 595.
    Decided January 24, 1890.]
    Henry Mahncke, Charles Muehlenbruch, E. G. Bacon, Isaac Edwards and A. McMillan v. The City of Tacoma and L. E. Sampson, as Treasurer.
    
    APPEAL — REFUSING TEMPORARY INJUNCTION — VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL.
    An order refusing a temporary injunction is not a final decision under the organic act (Rev. Stat. IT. S. § 1869), and no appeal can ■be taken therefrom.
    A judgment summarily dismissing a suit, when the complaint states a cause of action, is appealable; but when the order dismissing the action is made at appellant’s request, it is a voluntary dismissal and no appeal can be taken therefrom.
    
      Appeal from District Court, Pierce County.
    
    Tbe facts sufficiently appear in tbe opinion.
    
      Town & Likens, for appellants.
    If tbe order denies tbe motion for injunction and dismisses tbe bill or action, it is appealable. Higb on Injunctions, § 1795 (2d ed.); Obershotler v. Leubbering, 4 Mo. App. 481; Liens v. Mabee, 25 Ill. 247; Shaiu v. Hill, 67 Ill. 455; Weaver v. Poyer, 70 Ill. 567; Prout v. Lomer, 79 Ill. 331.
    
      Thomas Carroll, for appellees.
    Tbe granting or refusing to grant a temporary injunction or restraining order is a matter resting in the sound discretion of tbe court, and will not be interfered with, and from which an appeal will not lie. People v. Schoo-maker, 50 N. Y. 500; Paul v. Manger, 47 N. Y. 469; Pleasants v. Vevay, 42 Ind. 391; Higb on Injunctions (2d ed.), §§ 1696 to 1708, and notes.
    Section 446 of tbe Code Wash. T., in so far as it allows appeals from an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction, is contrary to tbe organic act (§ 1869, Bev. Stat. U. S.) McCormick v. Walla Walla, etc., R. R. 
      Co., 1 Wash. T. 512; N. P. B. R. Go. v. Wells, Fargo & Go., 2 Wash. T. 303.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Scott, J.

The appeal in this case is from an order refusing appellants a temporary injunction, and also dismissing the action. Appellees moved to dismiss on the ground that no appeal lies from such an order.

Under the organic act no appeal could have been taken from an order refusing a temporary injunction, as the same is not a final decision. And had the order stopped with refusing the injunction the appeal would not lie. This goes further, however, and purports to summarily dismiss the suit. The complaint states a cause of action, and, from the bare record, this part of the order is unaccountable, and manifestly erroneous. Were the record unaided in any way, the case would have .to be reversed on that ground; but counsel for appellants advisedly states to the court in his argument here, that the order dismissing the action was made at appellants’ request.

This being admitted by appellants, we think they are bound by it in this court, and that we would not be justified in viewing the case in any other light; and, as it was a voluntary dismissal, no appeal could be taken therefrom.

The motion to dismiss is therefore granted with costs.

ANdees, O. J., and Dunbar, Hoyt and Stiles, JJ., concur.  