White v. Geinger
| Decision Date | 17 March 1914 |
| Parties | WHITE v. GEINGER. [d] |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; F. M. Calkins, Judge.
Action by H. L. White against A. C. Geinger. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
In an action at law to recover money upon which issue was joined by the defendant, the litigation proceeded to judgment, which was rendered January 3, 1913. No error whatever is predicated concerning the proceedings up to and including the rendition of judgment. On February 27, 1913, without the time therefor having been extended, the defendant, appearing by new counsel, filed a motion for a new trial, alleging misconduct of a juryman, excessive damages, and insufficiency of the evidence. This motion was overruled May 21, 1913, and on June 7, 1913, the defendant appealed from the judgment rendered January 3d of that year, and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
A. H. Davis, of Ashland, for appellant. A. E. Reames, of Medford, for respondent.
Section 175, L. O. L., says: "A motion to set aside a judgment and for a new trial, with the affidavits, if any, in support thereof, shall be filed within one day after the entry of the judgment sought to be set aside, or such further time as the court may allow." In view of this statute, the circuit court could not properly entertain the motion filed more than one day after the trial, without extension of time having been granted. State v. McDaniel, 39 Or. 161, 65 P. 520.
Moreover, as held in Macartney v. Shipherd, 60 Or. 133, 117 P. 814, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1257, no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for a new trial. For these reasons, the defendant has no standing in this court by virtue of his appeal, and the judgment against him must be affirmed.
---------
Notes:
[d] Rehearing denied April 7, 1914.
---------
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clarizo v. Spada Distributing Co.
...of appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial, ORS 19.010. Macartney v. Shipherd, 1911, 60 Or. 133, 117 P. 814; White v. Geinger, 1914, 70 Or. 81, 139 P. 572. This rule is subject to the exceptions stated in Benson v. Birch, 1932, 139 Or. 459, 467, 10 P.2d 1050, and in Sherman v. Bank......
-
Benson v. Birch
...302; Maccartney v. Shipherd, 60 Or. 133, 117 P. 814, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1257; Abercrombie v. Heckard, 68 Or. 103, 136 P. 875; White v. Geinger, 70 Or. 81, 139 P. 572; Willetts v. Scudder, 72 Or. 535, 144 P. Beaver v. Mason, Ehrman & Co., 73 Or. 36, 143 P. 1000; Purdy v. Winters' Est., 85 Or. ......
-
State v. Evans
...Or. 262, 268, 117 P. 276; Abercrombie v. Heckard, 68 Or. 103, 104, 136 P. 875; In re Sneddon, 74 Or. 586, 591, 144 P. 676; White v. Geinger, 70 Or. 81, 82, 139 P. 572; Wallace v. P. R. L. & P. Co., 88 Or. 219, 226, P. 974, 170 P. 263. Although there may have been an occasional discordant no......
-
City of Portland, By and Through Portland Development Commission v. Therrow
...as an appealable matter the denial of a motion for a new trial. ORS 19.010; Macartney v. Shipherd, 60 Or. 133, 117 P. 814; White v. Geinger, 70 Or. 81, 139 P. 572. The judgment of the trial court is ...