Wachsmuth v. Routledge
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah : E. D. Shattucic, Judge. Action by M. Wachsmuth against Alexander Rout-ledge, doing business as the Portland Oyster Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. A motion to dismiss the appeal was overruled, and the judgment was affirmed owing to the absence of appellant’s attorney. This was afterward set aside, and the cause fully tried.
1Opinion of the Court 1
Decided 27 December, 1897.
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
[51 Pac. 443.]
2Opinion of the Court · MooreChief Justice Moore
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The facts material to the inquiry are that on October 5, 1897, the second day of the regular term of this court next after the appeal was perfected, the appellant filed herein the transcript of the cause, and within twenty days thereafter applied for and obtained, without notice to the adverse party, an extension of twenty days to prepare an abstract of the record, which was filed on November 15, 1897.
1. Counsel for respondent contends that the transcript was not filed within the time…
3Cases cited3 opinions
- Richardson v. FordIllinois Supreme Court · 1853
- Rankin v. WoodworthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1831
- Wachsmuth v. RoutledgeOregon Supreme Court · 1899
4Cited by4 opinions
- Zelig v. Blue Point Oyster, Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1911
- Scheuer & Tiegs, Inc. v. BenedictWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
- First National Bank of Oregon v. Mobil Oil Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1975
- State v. AstoriaOregon Supreme Court · 1912