Legal Opinion

Maddox v. McHattan

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1924PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

Responding to the assignments of error, we have searched the record in vain for the purpose of examining the exceptions noted therein to the rulings of the court. We find that plaintiff has reserved no exceptions. The only exceptions disclosed are defendant’s exceptions to rulings made upon objections interposed by Mm. This is not an equity suit, where the cause is tried de novo. Long ago, this court declared the law to be that, in an action at law, it is not error simply, but error legally excepted to, that constitutes ground for reversal: Kearney v. Snodgrass, 12 Or. 311 (7 Pac. 309). That…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Kearney v. SnodgrassOregon Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Hicklin v. McClearOregon Supreme Court · 1889
  3. State v. ChaseOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Umatilla Irrigation Co. v. BarnhartOregon Supreme Court · 1892
  5. McClung v. McPhersonOregon Supreme Court · 1905

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Timmins v. HaleOregon Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Strandholm v. General Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Frontier Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Hartford Fire InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Correia v. BennettOregon Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. v. West Coast Fast Freight, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1949

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API