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
Decided 26 December, 1899.
On the Merits.
[59 Pac. 454.]
Mr. Chiee Justice Wolverton
delivered the opinion.
Counsel for appellant has endeavored to present the question whether it was error in the trial court to direct the jury to return a sealed verdict, and to permit them to separate before returning the same, without the consent or agreement of counsel. As it respects the issue thus stated, the bill of exceptions shows the following: “That thereafter [the jury having been instructed] the said court adjourned, with instructions to said jury to return a sealed verdict; that counsel for defendant…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Capital Lumbering Co. v. LearnedOregon Supreme Court · 1899
- Dawson v. PogueOregon Supreme Court · 1888
- Maling v. CrummeyWashington Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wachsmuth v. RoutledgeOregon Supreme Court · 1899