Ernst v. Logan Oldsmobile Co.
| Decision Date | 10 October 1956 |
| Parties | Richard J. ERNST, Appellant, v. LOGAN OLDSMOBILE CO., a corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Alfred T. McGill, for appellant. On the brief were McGill & Clarke, portland.
David W. Young, Portland, for respondent. With him on the brief were Weiser & Bowles, Portland.
Before WARNER, C. J., and ROSSMAN, LUSK, BRAND and PERRY, JJ.
Plaintiff purchased an automobile from the defendant, and, as part of the transaction, according to his claim, ordered from the defendant a policy of bodily injury and property damage insurance. Later, according to plaintiff's claim, an agent of defendant represented to him that he was 'fully protected and covered.' In fact no such policy of insurance was ever issued. While driving the automobile plaintiff had a collision in which another driver, J. F. Cramer, Jr., was injured and his car damaged. Cramer brought an action for damages against the plaintiff, who employed an attorney to defend it. The case was settled before trial at a total cost to plaintiff, including the fee of his attorney, of $959. He brought this action to recover that amount as damages on the theory that the representation above referred to was fraudulent. The jury returned a verdict in his favor for the amount sued for, and on May 25, 1953, the court entered a judgment based upon the verdict. On the same day the defendant filed a motion for a new trial. Under date of July 20, 1953, the court caused to be filed in the case 'its memorandum opinion' by which it was concluded, after a discussion of various grounds of the motion and the applicable law that the complaint did not state a cause of action and the court erred in not granting defendant's motion for a judgment of involuntary nonsuit, 'and for such error the motion for a new trial must be granted.' On July 23, 1953, there was entered in the journal an order of the court allowing the motion for a new trial. Plaintiff appeals from that order, and contends, among other things, that the court was without jurisdiction to make it because the statutory time for the allowance of a motion for a new trial had expired. Under ORS 17.615 such a motion must be 'heard and determined by the court within 55 days from the time of the entry of judgment, and not thereafter'. Otherwise it is conclusively deemed denied. The order allowing the motion for a new trial was entered on the fifty-ninth day...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beardsley v. Hill
...when the fifty-five days terminated. This is not in accord with Barone v. Barone, 207 Or. 26, 294 P.2d 609, and Ernst v. Logan Oldsmobile Co., 208 Or. 449, 302 P.2d 220. The memorandum opinion of the court, in the form of a letter, was not an order and even if it were it was not filed until......
-
St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Speerstra, A7809-15242
...and if not so heard and determined within said time, the motion shall conclusively be deemed denied."See ORCP 64 F; see Ernst v. Logan, 208 Or. 449, 302 P.2d 220 (1956).4 Apparently, the motion was set for hearing beyond the 55-day deadline mistakenly.5 The court said the evidence was in co......
-
Bither v. Baker Rock Crushing Co.
...citing Parker v. Parker, 241 Or. 623, 407 P.2d 855 (1965); Beardsley v. Hill, 219 Or. 440, 348 P.2d 58 (1959); Ernst v. Logan Oldsmobile Co., 208 Or. 449, 302 P.2d 220 (1956); Barone v. Barone, 207 Or. 26, 294 P.2d 609 (1956); and Thomsen v. Thomsen, 118 Or. 614, 228 P. 832, 245 P. 502, 247......
-
Leahy v. Leahy
...not constitute a judgment until reduced to an order, decree, or judgment is not controlling. Neither is our decision in Ernst v. Logan Oldsmobile Co., Or., 302 P.2d 220, controlling. In this latter case it clearly appears that the trial judge did not intend that his opinion should serve as ......