TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rader v. Barr

GEORGE RADER v. EMMET BARR

Rader v. Barr, 29 P. 889 (Or. 1892)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 6, 1892
Judges
Strahan
Citations
29 P. 88922 Or. 4951892 Ore. LEXIS 80
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Appeals—Judgment by Consent.—No appeal lies from a judgment giyen by consent of parties.
Summary
Grant county: James A. Fee, Judge. Plaintiff appeals. This action was commenced in justice’s court for Long Creek precinct, Grant county, Oregon. After the service of summons, the defendant appeared in said justice’s court and filed his answer denying each material allegation of the complaint. Thereafter, both the plaintiff and the defendant appeared in said justice’s court, and the defendant consented that judgment be rendered against him for the amount demanded by the complaint, which judgment was accordingly entered. Thereafter, the defendant served notice of appeal to the circuit court, gave an undertaking on appeal, and filed a transcript in the circuit court. At he next term of the circuit court, the appellant herein filed a motion to dismiss said appeal, on the ground that no appeal would lie from a judgment given by consent, and because the undertaking was filed with the justice seven days before the notice of appeal was filed, which motion was overruled by the court. Thereafter, on a trial before a jury, the defendant had a verdict, upon which a judgment was duly entered for costs, from which the plaintiff has appealed.

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.

A single question was presented in this court, and that was, the action of the trial cou'rt in refusing to dismiss the appeal from the justice. By consenting to the rendition of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff by the justice for the amount claimed, the defendant, in effect, waived his answer and left no issue in the case to be tried, and from such a judgment no appeal lies. (La Societe v. Beardslee, 63 Cal. 160 ; Conniff v. Kahn, 54 Cal. 283 .) The reason of this rule is plain. Courts are held to try real controversies between parties; but consent ends all contention, and leaves nothing for the court to do hut to see that the same is carried into effect. The circuit court, therefore, erred in refusing to dismiss the appeal, for which ité judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below with directions to sustain the motion.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1895: 11897: 11904: 11910: 11911: 21915: 11916: 11924: 11970: 11996: 11998: 11999: 12001: 12006: 218952026peak 1911 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Russell v. Sheahan927 P.2d 591 (Or. 1996)
  2. STATE ex rel. JUV. DEPT. v. Jenkins149 P.3d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 2006)
  3. In re the Marriage of Brown963 P.2d 105 (Or. Ct. App. 1998)
  4. State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Jenkins149 P.3d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 2006)
  5. Schmidt v. Oregon Gold Mining Co.40 P. 406 (Or. 1895)
  6. Schoren v. Schoren214 P. 885 (Or. 1924)

Most recent

  1. STATE ex rel. JUV. DEPT. v. Jenkins149 P.3d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 2006)
  2. State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Jenkins149 P.3d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 2006)
  3. Thompson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance25 P.3d 387 (Or. Ct. App. 2001)
  4. Rauda v. Oregon Roses, Inc.986 P.2d 1157 (Or. 1999)
  5. In re the Marriage of Brown963 P.2d 105 (Or. Ct. App. 1998)
  6. Russell v. Sheahan927 P.2d 591 (Or. 1996)

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
La Societe Francaise D'Epargnes et de Prevoyance Mutuelle v. Beardslee, 63 Cal. 160 (1883) 7
Conniff v. Kahn, 54 Cal. 283 (1880) 4

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