Holcomb v. Teal
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Polk County. This was a motion to dismiss tbe appeal. Tbe other facts are stated in tbe opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
By tbe Court,
McArthur, J.:
It is contended that tbe undertaking herein is insufficient, for tbe reason that there is no proper justification of tbe sureties, and that tbe affidavit does not show that tbe sureties are not of that class of persons who, by § 116 of tbe Civil Code, are prohibited from becoming sureties. There does not appear to have been any exception taken to tbe sufficiency of tbe sureties in the undertaking, consequently *353there was no justification necessary. Counsel have fallen into an error in considering the affidavit of the qualifications of the sureties as the justification…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Deering v. QuiveyOregon Supreme Court · 1895
- Che Gong v. StearnsOregon Supreme Court · 1888
- Ah Lep v. Gong ChoyOregon Supreme Court · 1886
- Northern Counties Investment Trust v. HenderWashington Supreme Court · 1895
- State ex rel. Mahoney v. McKinmoreOregon Supreme Court · 1880
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.