Seeley v. Sabastian
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Clackamas County. Respondent’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, for the reason, that there had been no'proper and. sufficient service of the notice of appeal. Pending the argument upon said motion, appellant’s attorney asked and obtained leave of court to file a cross motion, requesting permission to amend tbe return on said notice so as to conform to certain facts presented.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clackamas County. Respondent’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, for the reason, that there had been no'proper and. sufficient service of the notice of appeal. Pending the argument upon said motion, appellant’s attorney asked and obtained leave of court to file a cross motion, requesting permission to amend tbe return on said notice so as to conform to certain facts presented. Respondent’s attorney also filed a motion to strike from tbe files the statement of facts accompanying the record, for the reason that the same was not served within the time prescribed by lam
1Opinion of the Court
McArthur, -7.
It was ruled in Dolph v. Nickum (2 Ogn. 202), that this court could and would, in furtherance of justice, allow the return of service of notice of appeal to be amended so as to conform to the facts.
*564In this case the return is to some extent imperfect, but it appears tbat it can be amended so as to meet the fullest requirements of tbe law, and at tbe same time conform strictly to tbe facts. From an examination of tbe record we are satisfied tbat by denying the motion, we would binder rather tbat further justice, and as no sufficient reasons are urged to warrant a departure from tbe…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bryan v. MaumeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Leech v. WestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
3Cited by4 opinions
- Barbre v. GoodaleOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Coffee v. HarrisWyoming Supreme Court · 1921
- Markuson v. ClarkDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1912
- Brown v. SundbackDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1911