Twichell v. Risley (State Report Title: Twitchell v. Risley)
| Decision Date | 01 March 1910 |
| Citation | 56 Or. 226,107 P. 459 |
| Parties | TWICHELL v. RISLEY. [*] |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Douglas County; J.W. Hamilton, Judge.
Action by J.C. Twichell against A.J. Risley. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Dismissed.
This action was brought to recover $1,050 alleged to have been paid by plaintiff to the Hartford Life Insurance Company for the use and benefit of the defendant at the latter's special instance and request. The answer denies generally the averments of the complaint, except as thereinafter set forth. The further answer is to the effect that the money sought to be recovered was paid upon a special contract, whereby, in consideration of plaintiff paying one-half of the quarterly premiums, as they became due, upon a certain policy of insurance, and continuing to pay them during the life of the insured, he was to receive upon the death of the insured one-half of the amount collected under the policy. A demurrer was sustained to the new matter of the answer, whereupon the parties entered into the following stipulation: Based upon this agreement, a judgment was entered against defendant, who has attempted to appeal therefrom, assigning as errors the sustaining of plaintiff's demurrer and the rendition of the judgment.
J.C Fullerton (Fullerton & Orcutt, on the brief), for appellant.
J.O. Watson (Cardwell & Watson, on the brief), for respondent.
SLATER J. (after stating the facts as above).
It has been held by this court that no appeal lies from a judgment or decree rendered by consent of the parties. Rader v Barr, 22 Or. 495, 29 P. 889; Schmidt v. Oregon Gold Mining Co., 28 Or. 9, 40 P. 406, 1014, 52 Am.St.Rep. 759. In the latter case it was held that, strictly speaking, such a decree is not given by confession or for want of an answer, yet will be governed by section 548, B. & C. Comp. The purpose of an appeal is to bring...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. K.P.
...of the Supreme Court cannot be conferred by consent, agreement, or waiver of the litigating parties. See also Twitchell v. Risley, 56 Or. 226, 228, 107 P. 459 (1910) (appellate jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent).2 Neither party relies on the appeal statutes for criminal cases foun......
-
Russell v. Sheahan, CV-0067
...to a decree by confession, and the parties having consented thereto, are not entitled to appeal therefrom"); Twitchell v. Risley, 56 Or. 226, 227, 107 P. 459 (1910) (judgment or decree rendered by consent of the parties is not appealable); Schmidt v. Oregon Mining Co., 28 Or. 9, 40 P. 406, ......
-
Thompson v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.
...defendant consented to judgment, and the court entered judgment after the parties agreed to its terms in open court. In Twitchell v. Risley, 56 Or. 226, 107 P. 459 (1910), the plaintiff demurred to the defendant's answer, and the trial court sustained the demurrer. The parties entered an ag......
-
Huyler v. Kohn
...as a review of the interlocutory judgment or intermediate order is allowed on the appeal from the final judgment." In Twitchell v. Risley, 56 Or. 226, 107 P. 459, 460, was held: "All the errors of law committed by the court during the course of a trial are merged in the judgment, from which......