Ferguson v. Ingle

Decision Date19 November 1900
Citation38 Or. 43,62 P. 760
PartiesFERGUSON et al. v. INGLE.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Benton county; J.W. Hamilton, Judge.

Action by E.W. Ferguson and others against J.W. Ingle. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

This is an action for money. The defendant, after denying the material allegations of the complaint, set up a counterclaim and, a demurrer thereto having been sustained, the plaintiffs, by leave of the court, filed an amended complaint, and immediately moved for a judgment of nonsuit which being denied the defendant filed an amended answer. A reply having put in issue the new matter in the answer, a trial was had, resulting in a judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.

H.C Watson, for appellants.

W.S McFadden, for respondent.

MOORE J.

It is contended by plaintiffs' counsel that the court erred in refusing to grant the voluntary nonsuit requested by their clients; while defendant's counsel insist that, the motion therefor not having specified the ground upon which it was predicated, no error was committed in this respect. Considering these questions in inverse order, the rule is well settled that the motion of an adverse party for a nonsuit must specify the grounds therefor, and, unless it does so, an appellate court will not review the action of the trial court in denying the motion. 14 Enc.Pl. & Prac. 117, 136; Silva v. Holland, 74 Cal. 530, 16 P. 385; Flynn v. Dougherty, 91 Cal. 669, 27 P. 1080, 14 L.R.A. 230; Wright v. Insurance Co., 12 Mont. 474, 31 P. 87, 19 L.R.A. 211. The reason for this rule is found in the fact that an appellate court will consider only such questions as have been presented to the trial court at the proper time, and in an appropriate manner; and when it appears that the question sought to be reviewed was not thus submitted to such court the presumption that its decision thereon is correct ought to prevail. But, whatever reason may be adduced for the existence of this rule, the point insisted upon is without merit, for the motion in this case was not made by the adverse party. The statute provides, in effect, that the plaintiff, upon his own motion, may secure a judgment of nonsuit at any time before trial, unless a counterclaim has been pleaded as a defense. Hill's Ann.Laws Or. § 246. A voluntary nonsuit is, therefore, peremptory, and, whatever motive may have prompted a plaintiff to dismiss his suit or action, he is not required to state it; for if the motion be made before trial, and in the absence of a counterclaim pleaded as a defense, the trial court is without discretion in the matter, and must give the judgment requested.

It is maintained by defendant's counsel that the court, in allowing the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint was authorized to impose upon them such terms as were proper; and having, in the same order, permitted the defendant to file an amended answer, no error was committed in denying the motion for a judgment of nonsuit. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Carlson v. Steiner
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1950
    ... ... unless it does so, the appellate court will not review the ... action of the trial court in denying the motion. Ferguson ... v. Ingle, 38 Or. 43, 62 P. 760; Mollencop v. City of ... Salem, 139 Or. 137, 8 P.2d 783, 83 A.L.R. 315; ... Ingalls v. Isensee, ... ...
  • State v. Pacific Live Stock Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • July 22, 1919
    ...therefore terminated the right to a voluntary nonsuit under said clause, and Hume v. Woodruff, 26 Or. 373, 38 P. 191, and Ferguson v. Ingle, 38 Or. 43, 62 P. 760, cited to support the contention. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the hearing upon a demurrer is not a "trial" wi......
  • Vancil v. Poulson
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • January 22, 1964
    ...therefor, and unless it does so, the appellate court will not review the action of the trial court in denying the motion. Ferguson v. Ingle, 38 Or. 43, 62 P. 760; Mollencop v. City of Salem, 139 Or. 137, 8 P.2d 783, 83 A.L.R. 315; Ingalls v. Isensee, 170 Or. 393, 133 P.2d 614. Unless we are......
  • J. K. Armsby Co. v. Grays Harbor Commercial Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • April 16, 1912
    ... ... especially is this the case, where the motion was denied in ... the lower court and renewed here. In Ferguson v ... Ingle, 38 Or. 43, 62 P. 760, it is said that, if the ... grounds for the motion are not stated, the appellate court ... will ... ...
  • 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