Boyles v. Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1936 |
| Citation | 55 P.2d 20,153 Or. 70 |
| Parties | BOYLES v. OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & NAV. CO. et al. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; James W. Crawford Judge.
Action by Robert M. Boyles against the Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Fletcher Rockwood, of Portland (Carey, Hart, Spencer & McCulloch, of Portland, on the brief for Northern Pac. R. Co.; Wilson & Reilly, of Portland, on the brief for Northern Pacific Terminal Co. of Oregon; A. C. Spencer and Maguire & Shields all of Portland, on the brief for Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co.), for appellants.
Gunther F. Krause, of Portland (Arthur I. Moulton, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.
This is a personal injury action wherein the plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment against defendants in the sum of $1,275.
Defendants assign error in the denial of their motion for new trial based upon (1) newly discovered evidence, and (2) alleged misconduct of counsel. Since the motion was filed too late to confer jurisdiction upon the circuit court to hear and determine the same ( State v. Hecker, 109 Or. 520 221 P. 808, 819; 46 C.J. 295; 20 R.C.L. 302), we deem it inadvisable to encumber the reports with a recital of the contents of the affidavits in support of the motion. In the Hecker Case Mr. Justice Harris, speaking for the court, said: "The motion itself is analogous to a pleading, and the limitation of time is akin to a statute of limitation; so that the motion, or pleading, must be filed within the prescribed time, or statute of limitation, in order to confer upon the court jurisdiction to hear and consider the motion."
The judgment was entered March 12, 1935. The motion for new trial was not filed until May 4, 1935-or 53 days after the judgment was entered and 34 days after expiration of the term. Section 2-803, Oregon Code 1930, chapter 233, p. 339, § 1, Oregon Laws 1933, provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. Reid
... ... From ... the amended complaint herein, to which is attached the ... pleadings in the original action, we glean the following ... facts: ... Homer ... C. Reid, under the false and fictitious name of Robert M ... Boyles, commenced an action against the Oregon-Washington ... Railroad & Navigation Company, [155 Or. 605] Northern Pacific ... Terminal Company, and Northern Pacific Railway Company to ... recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been ... sustained in falling down ... ...
-
State ex rel. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Olsen
...trial after the lapse of the statutory ten-day period unless an extension of time was granted within that period. Boyles v. Or.-Wash. R. & N. Co., 153 Or. 70, 55 P.2d 20 (1936); Nendel v. Meyers, 162 Or. 661, 94 P.2d 680 Defendant makes two contentions against the application of the statute......
-
Nendel v. Meyers
...as denied." 1, 2. The mandatory language of the above section is plain and unambiguous. As stated by this court in Boyles v. O.W.R. & N. Co., 153 Or. 70, 55 P. (2d) 20, wherein the same section was under consideration, "The statute means what it says." It is only by virtue of the statute th......