TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Yamhill Sanitary Public Market Co. v. Strowbridge

Yamhill Sanitary Pub. Mkt. Co. v. Strowbridge, 161 P. 93 (Or. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 28, 1916
Citations
161 P. 9382 Or. 801916 Ore. LEXIS 96
Disposition
Appeal Dismissed.
Headnotes
Appeal and Error — Abstract of Record — Failure to File. 1. Where no abstract was filed within -20 days after the transcript was filed as required by Supreme Court Rule VI (56 Or. 616, 117 Pac. ix), and no reason given for the neglect, an appeal will be dismissed upon motion.
Summary
From Multnomah: George N. Davis, Judge. This is an action by the Yamhill Sanitary Public Market Company, a corporation, against Joseph Strowbridge and the Strowbridge Estate Company, a corporation, in which judgment was rendered in the lower court in favor of defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Respondents move to dismiss the appeal upon the ground stated in the opinion of the 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

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

Opinion Per Curiam.

An appeal from a judgment rendered in this action against the plaintiff, a corporation, for the costs and disbursements was taken and perfected by it. The-transcript was filed with our clerk July 8, 1916, but no abstract has been filed as required by Rule VI, of this court ( 56 Or. 616 , 117 Pac. ix ). The defendants’’ counsel, ás soon as they learned of the default, moved upon notice to dismiss the appeal on account of that *81 failure. No reason has been assigned or excuse given for the neglect.

Upon the authority of Swanson v. Leavens, 26 Or. 561 ( 40 Pac. 230 ), Close v. Close, 28 Or. 108 ( 42 Pac. 128 ), and Morrison v. Hall, 55 Or. 243 ( 104 Pac. 963 ),. the appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1920: 11924: 11933: 11936: 11937: 11944: 119202026peak 1920 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Admiral Oriental Line v. United States86 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1936)
  2. Hunter v. Allen148 P.2d 936 (Or. 1944)
  3. Morley Const. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.90 F.2d 976 (8th Cir. 1937)
  4. McFarland v. Hueners190 P. 584 (Or. 1920)
  5. Josephian v. Lion227 P. 204 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)
  6. United States Rubber Co. v. Kimsey26 P.2d 565 (Or. 1933)

Most recent

  1. Hunter v. Allen148 P.2d 936 (Or. 1944)
  2. Morley Const. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.90 F.2d 976 (8th Cir. 1937)
  3. Admiral Oriental Line v. United States86 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1936)
  4. United States Rubber Co. v. Kimsey26 P.2d 565 (Or. 1933)
  5. Josephian v. Lion227 P. 204 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)
  6. McFarland v. Hueners190 P. 584 (Or. 1920)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Close v. Close, 42 P. 128 (Or. 1895) 6
Swanson v. Leavens, 40 P. 230 (Or. 1894) 5
Morrison v. Hall, 104 P. 963 (Or. 1909) 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