Rader v. Barr
| Decision Date | 29 March 1892 |
| Parties | RADER v. BARR. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Grant county; JAMES A. FEE, Judge. Reversed.
The facts fully appear in the following statement by STRAHAN, C.J.:
This action, by George Rader against Emmet Barr, was commenced in justice's court for Long Creek precinct, Grant county, Or. After the service of summons the defendant appeared in said justice's court, and filed his answer, denying each material allegation of the complaint. Thereafter both the plaintiff and the defendant appeared in said justice's court, and the defendant consented that judgment be rendered against him for the amount demanded by the complaint, which judgment was accordingly entered. Thereafter the defendant served notice of appeal to the circuit court, and gave an undertaking on appeal, and filed a transcript in the circuit court. At the next term of the circuit court the respondent filed a motion to dismiss said appeal on the ground that no appeal would lie from a judgment given by consent, and because the undertaking was filed with the justice seven days before notice of appeal was filed, which motion was overruled by the court. Thereafter, on a trial before a jury, the defendant had verdict, upon which a judgment was duly entered for costs, from which the plaintiff has appealed.
Bailey & Balleray, for appellant.
STRAHAN, C.J., (after stating the facts as above.)
A single question was presented in this court, and that was the action of the trial court in refusing to dismiss the appeal from the justice. By consenting to the rendition of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff by the justice for the amount claimed the defendant, in effect, waived his answer, and left no issue in the case to be tried, and from such a judgment no appeal lies. La Societe Francaise d'Epargnes et de Prevoyance Mutuelle v. Beardslee, 63 Cal. 160; Conniff v. Kahn, 54 Cal. 283. The reason of this rule is plain. Courts are held to try real controversies between parties; but consent ends all contention, and leaves nothing for the court to do but to see that the same is carried into effect. The circuit court, therefore, erred in refusing to dismiss the appeal, for which its judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below, with directions to sustain the motion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. Sheahan, CV-0067
...party has consented. In that circumstance, this court has declined to exercise appellate jurisdiction. For example, in Rader v. Barr, 22 Or. 495, 29 P. 889 (1892), the defendant consented to entry of judgment, for the amount sought in the plaintiff's complaint, and sought to appeal. This co......
-
Thompson v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.
...those cases with this case—causes me to question whether the holding in Russell might have been too broadly stated. In Rader v. Barr, 22 Or. 495, 495, 29 P. 889 (1892), the defendant denied each material allegation in the plaintiff's complaint. Nonetheless, "both the plaintiff and the defen......
-
Marriage of Brown, Matter of
...Commission v. Magar, 288 Or. 635, 641, 607 P.2d 167 (1980); Westfall v. Wilson, 255 Or. 428, 431, 467 P.2d 966 (1970); Rader v. Barr, 22 Or. 495, 29 P. 889 (1892). However, the prerequisite to application of that rule has always been actual consent to entry of the judgment. For example, in ......
-
State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Jenkins, 2004-812661.
...P.2d 591. In support of the above pronouncement, the Russell court adhered to the "waiver-of-appeal" rule described in Rader v. Barr, 22 Or. 495, 496, 29 P. 889 (1892), a case in which the defendant consented to the entry of judgment but later sought to appeal. In dismissing the appeal of t......