Hume v. Rice
Oregon Supreme Court
From Marion: "William Galloway, Judge. Suit by F. E. Hume against Elver L. Rice and William Esch to enjoin tbe enforcement of an execution against tbe plaintiff. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, tbe defendants appeal. Department 2. Statement by Mb. Justice Mc-Camant. This is a suit to enjoin the malicious abuse of a writ of execution to tbe oppression of plaintiff.
Read the full summary
From Marion: "William Galloway, Judge. Suit by F. E. Hume against Elver L. Rice and William Esch to enjoin tbe enforcement of an execution against tbe plaintiff. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, tbe defendants appeal. Department 2. Statement by Mb. Justice Mc-Camant. This is a suit to enjoin the malicious abuse of a writ of execution to tbe oppression of plaintiff. Tbe record before us is meager and we are largely dependent on statements in tbe briefs and the oral admissions of tbe respective attorneys for tbe facts. It appears that on February 17, 1915, Elver L. Rice recovered judgment…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McCamant
1, 2. The restitution bond was filed before the expiration of the five-day period allowed by the statute for exceptions to the sufficiency of Hume’s undertaking on appeal. It was therefore premature: Hansen v. Robbins, 80 Or. 659 (157 Pac. 1112, 158 Pac. 403). It is admitted that Rice acquired no rights by the filing of this bond. All proceedings had under the execution after Hume had filed his supersedeas bond, May 5, 1915, were therefore wrongful. The only levy which was made under the writ was the garnishment of the Gervais State Bank. The damages claimed by Hume are predicated chiefly on…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wells, Fargo & Co. v. WallOregon Supreme Court · 1860
- Hansen v. RobbinsOregon Supreme Court · 1916
- Marks v. StephensOregon Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rogers v. KingOregon Supreme Court · 1967