Crawford v. Wist

• Decision Date: 18 February 1895
• Citation: 39 P. 218,26 Or. 596
• Parties: CRAWFORD v. WIST.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

39 P. 218

26 Or. 596

CRAWFORD v. WIST.

Supreme Court of Oregon

February 18, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Tillamook county; George H. Burnett Judge.

Action by Robert Crawford against E.G.E. Wist for slander. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Dismissed.

T.B. Handley, for appellant.

C.W Fulton, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of the state of Oregon for Tillamook county. The notice thereof is as follows: "In the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Tillamook County. Robert Crawford Plaintiff and Appellant, vs. E.G.E. Wist, Defendant and Respondent. To E.G.E. Wist, the Above-Named Defendant: Take notice that the above-named plaintiff hereby appeals from the judgment of the above-entitled court, rendered at the August term thereof for 1893, in the above-entitled cause, in favor of defendant, and against plaintiff, for the costs and disbursements of said action; and on said appeal plaintiff will rely on the following grounds, to wit." Here follow the assignments of error. The respondent moves to dismiss the appeal because the judgment mentioned in the notice is not sufficiently described therein for identification. The tendency of the court, as indicated by recent decisions, is to construe notices of appeal liberally and hold them sufficient if, by fair construction or reasonable intendment, the court can say that the appeal is taken from the judgment in a particular case. But a notice of appeal like the one in question, which contains no other description of the judgment than that it was rendered for costs and disbursements in an action between certain parties at a specified term of the circuit court, and which does not even state the nature of the action, or contain any references by the aid of which the particular judgment can be identified, is manifestly so indefinite and uncertain that the court cannot say that the appeal was taken in any particular case; for a judgment in any case between the same parties for costs and disbursements, rendered at any time during the term, would satisfy the description in the notice. If, therefore, it be conceded that a judgment rendered on the 6th day of September, 1893, was rendered at the August term of the court,--a fact which does not appear from the transcript,--the other defects above mentioned render the notice ineffectual for the purpose intended. However liberal a rule we may...