Basche v. Pringle

Decision Date14 May 1891
Citation26 P. 863,21 Or. 21,21 Or. 24
PartiesBASCHE v. PRINGLE et al.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Bauer county; JAMES A. FEE, Judge.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

An appeal will not lie from an order overruling a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction and to vacate an order appointing a receiver, in a suit for the dissolution of a partnership and for an accounting.

Williams & Smith, for appellants.

M.L. Olmsted, for respondent.

BEAN, J.

On February 10, 1891, plaintiff commenced a suit for the dissolution of a copartnership existing between him and defendants, and for an accounting. On the filing of the complaint the court ordered a preliminary injunction to issue, enjoining and restraining defendants from in any manner interfering with the property or assets of the copartnership, and appointing a receiver thereof. After answering the complaint, the defendants moved on the pleadings, and certain affidavits filed, before the judge of said court at chambers, for the dissolution of the injunction, and the vacation of the order appointing a receiver, which being denied, defendants appeal to this court. "An order or judgment from which an appeal will lie must be one affecting a substantial right, and which, in effect, determines the action or suit; so as to prevent a judgment or decree therein. It is one which concludes the parties as regards the subject-matter in controversy in the tribunal pronouncing it. It must be one which not only affects a substantial right, but which, in effect, determines the action." Hill, Code, § 535; State v. Brown, 5 Or. 119. The order from which this appeal is taken is not such final judgment. The object and purpose of the preliminary injunction and the appointment of the receiver was only to preserve the property pending the final determination of the suit. It did not in any manner determine, or attempt to determine, the rights of the parties, nor does it in any way preclude a final decree upon the hearing on the merits. It follows, therefore, that the appeal must be dismissed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Salem King's Products Co. v. La Follette
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1921
    ...order and is usually temporary and devoid of the quality of a finality. Helm v. Gilroy, 20 Or. 517, 520, 26 P. 851; Basche v. Pringle, 21 Or. 24, 26 P. 863; Fowle v. House, 26 Or. 587, 39 P. 5; v. Milwaukee, 76 Or. 143, 150, 147 P. 545. La Follette urges that the order for an injunction mad......
  • Anderson v. Harju
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1925
    ...extent as to warrant an appeal therefrom. 2 High, Inj. § 1693." Helm v. Gilroy, 20 Or. 517, 520, 26 P. 851, 852. See, also, Basche v. Pringle, 21 Or. 24, 26 P. 863; Marquam v. Ross, 47 Or. 374, 381, 78 P. 698, 83 852, 86 P. 1; Giant Powder Co. v. Or. Western R. R. Co., 54 Or. 325, 101 P. 20......
  • Sears v. Dunbar
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • July 30, 1907
    ... ... rendering it except such as are necessary to be determined in ... carrying it into effect." In Basche v. Pringle, ... 21 Or. 24, 26 P. 863, Mr. Justice Bean says an appealable ... judgment "is one which concludes the parties as regards ... ...
  • Winters v. Grimes
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1928
    ... ... citation of authorities could add nothing to what has been ... previously said by this court. See Basche v ... Pringle, 21 Or. 24, 26 P. 863; State v. Security ... Sav. & T. Co., 28 Or. 410, 43 P. 162; State ex rel ... v. Downing, 40 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT