TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Chemin v. City of East Portland

L. F. CHEMIN v. CITY OF EAST PORTLAND

Chemin v. City of East Portland, 24 P. 1038 (Or. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 28, 1890
Judges
Strahan
Citations
24 P. 103819 Or. 5121890 Ore. LEXIS 76
Headnotes
Apeeaít-Jostipication op Sureties — Power op Court to-Shokten Time. — The eoart below had no power to shorten the time allowed by law for the justification of sureties on' appeal, and when the transcript was filed in this court, before the time fixed by law for such ju-lification, the same must be stricken from the docket.
Summary
Appeal from Multnomah county: L. B. Stearns, judge. The final decree in this case was rendered on the thirtieth: day of September, 1890. On the same day the appellant served his notice of appeal, and filed his undertaking on appeal. On the sixth day of October, 1890, the respondent excepted to the sufficiency of the sureties and served notice thereof upon appellant’s counsel, who thereupon gave notiee that the sureties would appear at once to justify. On the same day the appellant and respondent appeared in open court, and after hearing the appellant’s application, the court made an order shortening the time for the justieation of the sureties from ten days to two hours. At the time fixed by the court for such justification, being October 6, 1890, at the hour of 3:30 P. M. of said day, the appellant produced his sureties in open court, andrespond-ent’s counsel, though present, declined to examine as to their qualifications and thereupon the court adjudged them sufficient. On October 7, 1890, the transcript was filed in this court.

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

Opinion of the Court — Strahan

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

Strahan, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and also to strike the case from the docket. The only question material to be considered is whether or not the ease should be stricken from the docket, and that depends on the effect of the order of the court below shortening the time within which the sureties were required to justify. Section 524, Hill’s Code, authorises the court, when notice' of a motion is necessary, to prescribe a shorter time than ten days, by ail order endorsed on the notice; but the Code does not empower the court to shorten the time fixed by law for the justification of the sureties on appeal. In this case the appeal was not perfected when the transcript was filed in this court, and the motion to strike the case from the docket must be allowed. Callahan v. Portland, etc., R. R. Co., 17 Or. 556 .

The appellant may have leave to withdraw his transcript.

How later courts describe this case

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

1901: 119012026peak 1901 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nottingham v. McKendrick57 P. 195 (Or. 1901)

Most recent

  1. Nottingham v. McKendrick57 P. 195 (Or. 1901)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Callahan v. Portland & W. V. R. R., Co., 21 P. 870 (Or. 1889) 2

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