Skinner v. Lewis
| Citation | 40 Or. 571,62 P. 523 |
| Parties | SKINNER v. LEWIS et al. |
| Decision Date | 29 October 1900 |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Polk county; R.P. Boise, Judge.
Bill by George E. Lewis and others against Rebecca A. Skinner executrix of Hiram Alonzo Skinner, deceased. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Motion to dismiss appeal. Denied.
Geo. G. Bingham and A.O. Condit, for the motion.
Webster Holmes, opposed.
1. Where there are several respondents, and some of them except to the sufficiency of the sureties on the undertaking for an appeal, the appeal is not to be deemed abandoned as to the other respondents, although the transcript is not filed within 30 days from the expiration of the time allowed them to except to the sureties. It will be a sufficient compliance with the statute if it is filed within 30 days from the justification of the sureties on the exceptions filed by their co-respondents.
2. Where a cause originates in the county court, and, on appeal to the circuit court, is tried on the testimony given in the county court, it is not necessary, on appeal to this court that the evidence be identified by the certificate of the circuit judge. It is enough if it is identified by the certificate of the county judge.
3. It is no valid objection to an order granting an application of an executor or administrator to be substituted in place of a deceased party that it was made on the day notice thereof was served upon the attorneys for the opposite party, as notice in such case is believed to be unnecessary, unless required by the court. Hill's Ann.Laws Or. §§ 38, 524.
4. Where sureties on an appeal bond are excepted to, the appellant is not bound to produce them for justification, but may abandon the attempted appeal, and take a new one. Holladay v. Elliott, 7 Or. 483; Van Auken v Dammeier, 27 Or. 150, 40 P. 89.
5. Where the sureties on an undertaking for an appeal, when excepted to, attempt to justify, but fail, the circuit court may, under section 537 of the statute, allow a new undertaking to be filed.
6. Where an appellant omits to assign errors in his abstract, through mistake or inadvertence, he will be permitted to amend upon a proper showing. Fleischner v Bank, 36 Or. 553, 60 P. 603.
7. Where, after exceptions to the sufficiency of sureties on an undertaking for an appeal, the appellant dies pending their justification, and subsequently, and after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Columbia City Land Co. v. Ruhl
... ... 37 P. 456, 38 P. 190, 42 P. 997; Fisher v ... Tomlinson, 40 Or. 111, 60 P. [70 Or. 251] 390, 66 P ... 696; In re Skinner's Will, 40 Or. 571, 62 P ... 523, 67 P. 951 ... In the ... case at bar as the first undertaking was not filed within the ... ...
-
Lang v. Lang
...for entertaining it, then, of course, it is not to be regarded as a delusion. Bradley v. Palmer, 193 Ill. 15, 61 N. E. 856;Skinner v. Lewis, 40 Or. 571, 62 Pac. 523, 67 Pac. 951. [3][4][5] The evidence was admissible as tending to show that defendant's belief was unfounded. In so holding, w......
- State v. Carlson
-
In re Johnson's Estate
...in equity. The final conclusion of such a trial is a decree, not a judgment. In re Plunkett's Estate, 33 Or. 414, 54 P. 152; Skinner's Will, 40 Or. 571, 62 P. 523, 67 951. When an appeal is from a decree in equity, the cause is to be tried anew on the testimony, and the transcript must cont......