Baisley v. Baisley
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Baker County. Unless a disqualification of the regular judge of the district exists another judge cannot be substituted. (Act, 1880, p. 48; State v. Roberts, 8 Nev. 24; People v. O’Neil, 47 Cal. 109.) This statute does not authorize the holding of a separate-and distinct department of the Circuit Court. The power of substitution must be strictly construed. (Clays v. State, 24 Wis. 462.) Consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baker County. Unless a disqualification of the regular judge of the district exists another judge cannot be substituted. (Act, 1880, p. 48; State v. Roberts, 8 Nev. 24; People v. O’Neil, 47 Cal. 109.) This statute does not authorize the holding of a separate-and distinct department of the Circuit Court. The power of substitution must be strictly construed. (Clays v. State, 24 Wis. 462.) Consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction. (Freeman on Judgments, § 119; Dix v. Hatch., 10 Iowa, 380.) and made an oral argument.
1Opinion of the CourtThayek, J.
The respondent commenced an action against the appellant in the Circuit Court for Baker County upon a promissory note executed by the latter to the former.
The appellant filed an answer, in which he alleged that the only consideration for the note was the sale of an undivided three-eighths interest in a certain quartz-mining claim; and that at the time of making the note, the respondent agreed to convey the said interest in the claim to him immediately, on the same day the note was executed; that the respondent did not so convey the same on the day the note was executed, nor had since conveyed…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State v. GardnerOregon Supreme Court · 1898
- Dinkla v. MilesIndiana Supreme Court · 1934
- Hanley v. City of MedfordOregon Supreme Court · 1910
- Bedford and Bates v. StoneCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1906
- Hoglan v. GeddesWyoming Supreme Court · 1918
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.