TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Moorhouse v. Donica

THOMAS MOORHOUSE v. R. W. DONICA and E. R. COX

Moorhouse v. Donica, 11 P. 71 (Or. 1886)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 24, 1886
Judges
Lord
Citations
11 P. 7113 Or. 4351886 Ore. LEXIS 40
Disposition
Reversed and remanded for trial,
Headnotes
Appeal prom Justice’s Court — Misdescription or Judgment — Motion to Dismiss. — A notice of appeal from a Justice’s to the Circuit Court describes the judgment appealed from as having been rendered on the twenty-second day of December, when it was in fact rendered on the twenty-second day of November. The respondent appeared, and on his motion the case was continued till the next regular term. Held, that even if the defect were such that he might have taken advantage of it, he waived the right by failing to make the objection.
Summary
Umatilla County. Defendants appeal. cited Lewis v. Lewis, 4 Or. 209; Christian v. Evans, 5 Id. 253; Base v. Luse, 9 Id. 149; Neppach v. Jordan, ante, p. 246; Code of Oregon, sec. 523; Justice’s Code, secs. 69, 72, 76, 77; Session Laws, 1874, p. 63; Rice v. Railroad, 1 Black, 358; Thayer v. Wendell, 1 Gall-. 37; Carter v. Koshland, 12 Or. 492; Wilgus v. Get-tings, 19 Iowa, 82. cited Lewis v. Lewis, 4 Or. 209; Whiteaker v. Vanschoiack, January term, 1873; 'Christian v. Evans, 5 Or. 253; Luse v. Luse, 9 Id. 149.

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

Opinion of the Court — Lord

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

Lord, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court dismissing an appeal from a Justice’s Court. The defect complained of is that the notice of appeal describes the judgment as rendered on the twenty-second day of December, whereas the transcript shows that it was rendered on the twenty-second day of November. It is manifest from the notice itself, the undertaking filed, and the transcript, that it was a mere clerical over *436 sight or mistake, and in no way could have injured or misled the respondent. All the papers and entries in the case seem to have been duly certified to the Circuit Court and filed, and the record discloses that the parties appeared, and that when the case came on regularly to be heard, upon motion of plaintiff and respondent, by his counsel, it was continued until the next term.

It seems to us, if the defect complained of was such that advantage could have been taken of it, the subsequent conduct of the plaintiff waived it. He made no objections to the notice served upon him, or the undertaking, or any other irregularity, if any existed, but appeared, and when the cause was called, interposed no motion to dismiss, or other objection, clearly showing he was there to proceed with the trial, unless for his own ■accommodation he could procure a continuance, which in fact was granted. The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for trial.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1886–1887: 21896–1897: 11910–1911: 11912–1913: 21920–1921: 21922–1923: 11968–1969: 118862026peak 1886 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Keady v. United Rys. Co.100 P. 658 (Or. 1910)
  2. Holton v. Holton129 P. 532 (Or. 1913)
  3. Allen v. Byerly48 P. 474 (Or. 1897)
  4. Lee v. Gram196 P. 373 (Or. 1922)
  5. MacMahon v. Hudd119 P. 348 (Or. 1912)
  6. McFarland v. Hueners190 P. 584 (Or. 1920)

Most recent

  1. Hulegaard v. Garrett446 P.2d 975 (Or. 1968)
  2. Lee v. Gram196 P. 373 (Or. 1922)
  3. McFarland v. Hueners190 P. 584 (Or. 1920)
  4. Rohrbacher v. Strain176 P. 990 (Or. 1920)
  5. Holton v. Holton129 P. 532 (Or. 1913)
  6. MacMahon v. Hudd119 P. 348 (Or. 1912)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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