TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Alberson v. Mahaffey

J. L. ALBERSON v. P. A. MAHAFFEY

Alberson v. Mahaffey, 6 Or. 412 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1877
Judges
Shattuck
Citations
6 Or. 412
Headnotes
Appeal — Appidavits op Sureties in, must be Piled when. — The affidavits of the sureties in an undertaking on appeal must be filed contemporaneously with the filing of the undertaking. Cross-motion — Within what time must be made. — A cross-motion for leave to file a new undertaking must be made before a motion to dismiss the appeal because of the defective undertaking.
Summary
Appeal from Union County. A motion was made in this case to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that no affidavits by the sureties in the undertaking on appeal as to their qualifications were filed with the undertaking. Upon the hearing of the motion, appellant asked leave to perfect his appeal by filing a new undertaking.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Shattuck

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court, Shattuck, J.:

The undertaking on appeal is defective. There is no affidavit of the surety as to his qualifications, ánd no recital or averment whatever of his qualifications. This case is within that of Holcomb v. Teal, 4 Or. 352 , which requires the affidavits of the sureties in an undertaking on appeal to be filed contemporaneously with the filing of the undertaking. The motion to dismiss the appeal because of the insufficiency of the undertaking, should be allowed. No amendment of the undertaking, or leave to now perfect the appeal by filing a new undertaking, can be allowed. The rule announced on this subject in Cross v. Chichester, 4 Or. 114 , should apply to this case. The application to file a new undertaking ought to have been made in the form of a cross-motion before the hearing of the motion to dismiss.

Motion to dismiss allowed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1895: 11899: 11909: 11921: 118952026peak 1895 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ferrari v. Beaver Hill Coal Co.94 P. 181 (Or. 1909)
  2. De Golia v. Andersen188 P. 164 (Or. 1921)
  3. Northern Counties Investment Trust v. Hender41 P. 913 (Wash. 1895)
  4. Elwert v. Norton51 P. 1097 (Or. 1899)

Most recent

  1. De Golia v. Andersen188 P. 164 (Or. 1921)
  2. Ferrari v. Beaver Hill Coal Co.94 P. 181 (Or. 1909)
  3. Elwert v. Norton51 P. 1097 (Or. 1899)
  4. Northern Counties Investment Trust v. Hender41 P. 913 (Wash. 1895)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Cross v. Chichester, 4 Or. 114 (1871) 7
Holcomb v. Teal, 4 Or. 352 (1873) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list