Cameron v. Wasco County

• Citation: 27 Or. 318,41 P. 160
• Parties: CAMERON v. WASCO COUNTY.
• Decision Date: 20 July 1895
• Court: Supreme Court of Oregon

41 P. 160

27 Or. 318

CAMERON v. WASCO COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Oregon

July 20, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Wasco county; W.L. Bradshaw, Judge.

Proceeding by James Cameron against Wasco county. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

A.J. Dufur, for appellant.

W.H Wilson, for respondent.

MOORE J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court upon review of the proceedings of the county court of Wasco county in the location and establishment of a county road therein. It appears from the record that the circuit court sustained the action of the county court, and dismissed the writ of review. The transcript having been filed in this court, the respondents move to dismiss the appeal for the following reasons: (1) That the notice of appeal does not specify the errors upon which the appellant relies; (2) that the notice does not describe any judgment or decision with sufficient certainty to give this court jurisdiction; and (3) that there is a misdescription of the judgment, consisting of a variance between the description of the judgment given in the notice and that shown in the transcript. The notice, so far as material here, omitting title, is as follows: "You and each of you will please take notice that the above-named plaintiff, James Cameron hereby appeals to the supreme court of the state of Oregon from all that certain decision and judgment made and rendered in the above-entitled cause by Honorable W.L. Bradshaw, judge of the above-named court, at chambers, at Dallas City, Wasco county, Oregon, on the 26th day of January, 1895, and entered of record on page of 96 and 97 of Journal J of Records of said court, and to which record you are hereby referred as the decision and judgment hereby appealed from. Appellant will in this appeal rely upon each and all of the errors committed by the county court of Wasco county as appears by the files and records of said court in the matter of laying out or attempting to lay out the county road, or pretended county road, mentioned and described in the decision and judgment hereby appealed from; and the said county court erroneously exercised its judicial functions and exceeded its jurisdiction in the matter of laying out, or attempting to lay out and establish said county road, or pretended county road, and in the following particulars: [Here follow five alleged errors of the county court, after which the notice proceeds as follows]: And said circuit court, acting by and through its judge, said Honorable W.L. Bradshaw, erred in deciding and adjudging that said county court committed no errors in the matter of its proceedings relating to its attempted location and establishment of said proposed county road, and in affirming all said acts or any of said acts of said county court relating thereto, and in deciding said pretended road a public highway, and in dismissing the writ of review issued upon plaintiff's petition, for the reason that said county court acted without jurisdiction in the matter mentioned in plaintiff's petition and appearing in the return of said writ." The statute provides that an appeal may be taken from a judgment of the circuit court on review in like manner and with like effect as from a judgment rendered in said court in an action at law (Hill's Code, § 591); that is, the notice of appeal in such cases must specify the grounds of error with reasonable certainty upon which the appellant intends to rely upon the appeal ( Id. § 537), and, the notice in this case not having specified any grounds of error with reasonable certainty, the respondent contends that this court should not examine the record on appeal, while the appellant insists that on an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court on review involving a question of the jurisdiction of the county court no specification of the alleged errors is necessary in order to give this court jurisdiction of the appeal. Thayer, C.J., in Woodruff v. Douglas Co., 17 Or. 314, 21 P. 49, in commenting upon a motion to dismiss an appeal for the same reason as here assigned, said: "The dismissal of an appeal by the appellate court for the cause mentioned is not upon the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction of the appeal, but for the reason that the appellant failed to inform the adverse party as to the grounds of error upon which he intended to rely upon the appeal, as the Code requires him to do. But it does not follow that because the court may dismiss the appeal in such case it will do so when the record discloses an inherent infirmity in the judgment or other determination appealed from." In the matter of laying out and establishing roads, county courts are of inferior and limited jurisdiction ( Thompson v. Multnomah Co., 2 Or. 34; Johns v Marion Co., 4 Or. 46; State v. Officer, Id. 180; Canyonville & G. Road Co. v. Douglas Co., 5 Or. 284); but when the record of their proceedings shows that jurisdiction has been obtained of the subject-matter and of the parties interested in locating and establishing a county road, the same intendments obtain in favor of the regularity of their proceedings as prevail in courts of general jurisdiction ( State v. Myers, 20 Or. 442, 26 P. 307; Bewley v. Graves, 17 Or. 274, 20 P. 322). It would seem from these decisions that upon an appeal from the judgment of a circuit court on review of proceedings for the location of a road, when the question of a want of jurisdiction of the county court is involved, that the notice of appeal need not specify the alleged errors of the circuit court, but that when it appears that jurisdiction had been acquired by the county court of the subject-matter and persons of the interested parties, and any intermediate orders of the county court were reviewed by the circuit court, a statement of the alleged errors is necessary in the notice of appeal.

The jurisdiction of the circuit court to affirm the proceedings of the county court depends upon the question of jurisdiction of the

latter court; for, if the county court assumed to act without jurisdiction in the matter of laying out a county road, the circuit court is powerless to affirm its acts. Woodruff v Douglas Co., supra. And the notice of appeal in the case at bar having challenged the jurisdiction of the county court, and this fact being apparent from an inspection thereof, it follows that this court acquires jurisdiction of the cause upon the record without any assignment of errors. The...