TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Plinsky v. Nolan

Plinsky v. Nolan, 133 P. 71 (Or. 1913)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 24, 1913
Judges
McBride, Moore, Ramsey
Citations
133 P. 7165 Or. 4021913 Ore. LEXIS 276
Disposition
Appeal Dismissed.
Headnotes
Appeal and Error — Judgments Appealable — “Judgment by Confession.” Under Section 549, L. O. L., providing that an appeal will lie only from a judgment or decree other than one by confession or for want of answer, the plaintiff’s filing of a remitter amounted to an acceptance of the trial court’s offer and a consent to its judgment, and was equivalent to “judgment by confession,” and hence operated as a waiver of the right to appeal.
Summary
Prom Benton: James W. Hamilton, Judge. Statement Per Curiam. This is an action by Frank Plinsky against J. M. Nolan and Thomas Nolan to recover damages for breach of an alleged contract to employ him; the plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment for $135, which the defendants moved the court to set aside and to grant a new trial. The court entered an order to the effect that the verdict be set aside and a new trial granted, unless within 30 days the plaintiff should elect to rebate and accept a judgment against the defendants for $90. Within the specified time, in accordance with the order, the plaintiff filed a remitter in the following language: “Comes now the above-named plaintiff and remits all of that certain judgment entered in the above-entitled case, over and above the sum of $90, pursuant to the order of the court herein, giving plaintiff the opportunity to make such remitter or have the said judgment set aside.”- Judgment was thereupon entered for plaintiff and against the defendants for $90, together with costs and disbursements, from which the plaintiff appeals, assigning as errors certain rulings of the trial court in the exclusion of testimony and about the instructions to the jury. The defendants move to dismiss the appeal, because the filing of the remitter operates as a waiver of the right to appeal. Submitted on briefs without argument under the proviso of Rule 18 of the Supreme Court: 56 Or. 622 (117 Pac. xi).

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

Opinion of the Court

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

*404 Opinion Per Curiam.

In effect, the trial court said to the plaintiff, “You are not entitled to $135, hut if you will accept a judgment for $90 it will be entered in your favor for that amount.” Piling the remitter quoted amounted to an acceptance of that offer and a consent to such a judgment. It was tantamount to an agreement that all alleged errors were waived and the case settled on the proposed basis of a judgment for $90, with costs and disbursements. It is equivalent to a judgment by confession according to Schmidt v. Oregon Gold Min. Co., 28 Or. 9 ( 40 Pac. 406, 1014 , 52 Am. St. Rep. 759 ) and Twitchell v. Risley, 56 Or. 226 ( 107 Pac. 459 ). It is only from a judgment or decree other than one by confession or for want of answer that an appeal will lie: Section 549, L. O. L. Having invited and accepted the judgment entered, and so having consented to it, the plaintiff cannot appeal from it.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed.

Appeal Dismissed..

Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr: Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Ramsey concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1916: 21919: 11924: 11925: 11931: 11950: 119162026peak 1916 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Schoren v. Schoren214 P. 885 (Or. 1924)
  2. McDaniel v. Hancock43 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. 1950)
  3. Conlin v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.181 P. 71 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)
  4. Johnson v. Paulson154 P. 685 (Or. 1916)
  5. McCargar v. Moore157 P. 1107 (Or. 1916)
  6. Rorvik v. Astoria Box & Paper Co.299 P. 333 (Or. 1931)

Most recent

  1. McDaniel v. Hancock43 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. 1950)
  2. Rorvik v. Astoria Box & Paper Co.299 P. 333 (Or. 1931)
  3. Basche-Sage Hdw. Co. v. De Wolfe231 P. 135 (Or. 1925)
  4. Schoren v. Schoren214 P. 885 (Or. 1924)
  5. Conlin v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.181 P. 71 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)
  6. McCargar v. Moore157 P. 1107 (Or. 1916)

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
Schmidt v. Or. Gold Mining Co., 40 P. 406 (Or. 1895) 39
Twitchell v. Risley, 107 P. 459 (Or. 1910) 15

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