TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Baillie v. Columbia Gold Mining Co.

Baillie v. Columbia Gold Mining Co., 188 P. 973 (Or. 1920)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 23, 1920
Judges
McBride
Citations
188 P. 97396 Or. 321920 Ore. LEXIS 143
Disposition
Appeal Dismissed.
Headnotes
Appeal and Error — Order Directing Deceiver to Pay Costs is not Appealable. 1. An order directing receiver to pay -the costs previously adjudged against the defendants in the suit out of funds of defendant company then in the receiver’s hands is an interlocutory order which is not appealable, but which can be reviewed, if at all, only after the final determination of the suit. [As to the right of a receiver to appeal from a judgment respecting receivership, see note in Ann Cas. 1915D, 802.]
Summary
From Baker: Gustav Anderson, Judge. In Banc. This is an appeal from an order of the court directing the receiver to pay the costs adjudged against the defendant, as indicated in the opinion in the former hearing of this cause, as reported in 86 Or. 1 (166 Pac. 965, 167 Pac. 1167). The mandate in said cause having been duly entered, the-Circuit Court made an order directing the receiver theretofore appointed to pay the costs adjudged against defendants, amounting to $413, out of the moneys of defendant company then in his hands and from this order defendant company appeals.

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

Opinion of the Court — McBride

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

McBRIDE, C. J.

For the reasons stated in a former appeal, from an order requiring defendant to produce *33 its books ( 95 Or. 609 , 188 Pac. 418), we bold that the order is not appealable. It is not a final order, which, in effect, determines the suit, but is a mere interlocutory order which must await the final determination of the suit before it can be reviewed here, if appealable at all: Clay v. Clay, 56 Or. 538 ( 108 Pac. 119 , 109 Pac. 129 ).

The appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Clay v. Clay, 108 P. 119 (Or. 1910) 14
Baillie v. Columbia Gold Mining Co., 188 P. 418 (Or. 1920) 0
Commercial Nat'l Bank v. Temple, 109 P. 129 (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