Ogden v. Hoffman
Oregon Supreme Court
From Clackamas: James U. Campbell, Judge. This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The facts are as follows: The plaintiffs, deeming themselves aggrieved by a decree of the County Court sitting in probate, appealed to the Circuit Court where, upon motion of the defendant, their appeal was dismissed, said order being made December 27, 1917. On January 31, 1918, plaintiffs served upon John N. Sievers, one of defendant’s attorneys, a notice of appeal to this court, which notice…
Read the full summary
From Clackamas: James U. Campbell, Judge. This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The facts are as follows: The plaintiffs, deeming themselves aggrieved by a decree of the County Court sitting in probate, appealed to the Circuit Court where, upon motion of the defendant, their appeal was dismissed, said order being made December 27, 1917. On January 31, 1918, plaintiffs served upon John N. Sievers, one of defendant’s attorneys, a notice of appeal to this court, which notice was filed with the clerk with due proof of service on February 1,1918, and also filed on the same date their undertaking…
1Opinion of the Court
McBRIDE, O. J.
1, 2. Plaintiffs ’ rights under the first notice of appeal expired March 10, 1918, and that appeal having’ been perfected by service of notice and filing the required undertaking, the plaintiffs’ rights were exhausted and they could not take another appeal: Schmeer v. Schmeer, 16 Or. 243 (17 Pac. 864); Hill v. Lewis, 87 Or. 239 (170 Pac. 316), and many other cases. The service of the first notice upon one of the attorneys for defendant was sufficient.
The judgment for costs and disbursements was a separate proceeding arising upon an objection to the cost bill. It was heard…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Schmeer v. SchmeerOregon Supreme Court · 1888
- Hill v. LewisOregon Supreme Court · 1918
3Cited by1 opinion
- McKinney v. NaybergerOregon Supreme Court · 1931